Thursday, February 26, 2009

Natural Born Citizens, Citizens, and Cowards

By: Larry


February 27, 2009


Did you know that the Constitutional requirements to be a U.S. Congressman or U.S. Senator are different than the requirements to be U.S. President or Vice President?

The requirements may be found at the following website:
click here.

The Constitutional requirements to become a U.S. Senator or Congressman include having been a U.S. Citizen for a certain number of years. And, in order to be President or Vice President, the Constitution requires that one be a Natural Born Citizen and a resident for a certain number of years.

Now is it possible that the terms Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are synonymous? Were our founding fathers just a bunch of poorly educated, bumbling idiots, who used complicated words just to confuse the masses? Do you really know the difference? Do you care about protecting, defending and upholding the United States Constitution?

Constitutional Requirements

U.S. Congressman
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

U.S. Senator
Article I, Section 3, Clause 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

U.S. President
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5
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 United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. It is undisputed that children of American citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to hold the office of President upon reaching the required age, and that persons naturalized as U.S. citizens after birth are disqualified from holding that office.

The special term "Natural Born Citizen" is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Grandfather provision of Article II, Section I

“…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

The grandfather provision of the Natural Born Citizen Clause thus covered the first several presidents and vice-presidents, who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but who had been born as British Citizens before the American Revolution. [In other words, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution no Citizen of the United States could have been a Natural Born Citizen, because their parent’s were not U.S. Citizens at the time of their birth.]

It is generally agreed that these Constitutional provisions mean that anyone born on American soil to parents who are U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen eligible to someday become president or vice-president. It is also agreed that anyone whose citizenship is acquired after birth as a result of the naturalization process or procedure is not a natural born citizen and is therefore ineligible for those two positions.

The Lineage of Barack Hussein Obama II

Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Stanley Ann Dunham, a White American from Wichita, Kansas of English and Irish descent, and Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya. His parents met in 1960 while attending the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student.

Barack Hussein Obama I was a citizen of Great Britain at the time of his son’s birth. The senior Obama never became a Citizen of the United States. Obama II acquired British Citizenship at birth by virtue of this father, and later, Kenyan citizenship by virtue of his father, once Kenya won its independence.

Although Obama II’s mother was a U.S. Citizen at the time of his birth, the fact that his father was not created a condition of dual citizenship. Being born with dual citizenship disqualified Obama II from ever being considered to be a natural born citizen.

The Definition and Original Meaning

The drafters of our Constitution read Vattel’s Law of Nations, and incorporated many of its definitions into the text.

Vattel’s Law of Nations Chapter 19, § 212. Citizens and natives:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

And of Our Constitutional Republic?

In real life, a law must be changed or amended before it may be broken without punishment. What gives Barack Obama II the right to be the President of the United States?

Nothing gives him that right. You know it, I know it, Congress knows it, and the Supreme Court knows it. To date, not one single eligibility case against Obama II has been heard on the merits. That means there has been no hearing, no subpoenas, no production of evidence, nothing. Each case has been thrown out on a technicality without having been tried.

Many Americans assume that this case has been heard, and that Obama II was proven to be a Natural Born Citizen. They are wrong. If you think that the case has been tried, then I would encourage you to search. Search each and every eligibility challenge taken to court, and review the disposition of those cases. You will find that not one single case has ever been tried on the merits. Why you ask? Because as Eric Holder stated, ‘we are a nation of cowards’.

If you know the truth, and are afraid to speak it, then you sir/madam are a coward.


Sources:

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/presrequire.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm


http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/previous_questions.html

34 comments:
  1. There are those that agree with Vattel, a Swiss theorist who wrote in about 1750 that to be a Natural Born Citizen you have to have BOTH two parents who are citizens of the country and be born in the country. But this is a rare view.

    Most agree with Blackstone, the British legal scholar, who wrote at about 1770 that a Natural Born Subject under British common law is merely someone who is born in the British realm, with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats.

    There has even been a US Supreme Case, the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in which the Supreme Court said that a Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as a Natural Born Subject. The relevant section says:

    [The child of alien parents born in the United States] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

    The Wong court also said:

    “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’ (United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898))

    And most law review articles agree. For example, Yale Law review wrote:

    It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

    And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Oren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats. (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    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 hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    And so, since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen.

    Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to Obama’s speech, said: “Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, consider the writers of the Constitution.

    If the framers of Article II had really meant the Vattel definition and did not mean to use the British common law definition of a Natural Born Subject, they would have tried to make that clear.

    Why? Because they knew there was the Vattel definition and also knew that there was the Blackstone definition. They knew that it was possible to interpret "Natural Born Citizen" using the Blackstone definition.

    So, if they wanted to use the Vattel definition and not use the Blackstone definition, they would have had to say something to make that absolutely clear.

    So they would have written something like: “A natural born citizen,” meaning one with two parents who were citizens and born in the USA, ” or whatever. But they did not.

    Since they did not, we must assume that they were referring to the most common definition of Natural Born Citizen, which at the time was the use of Natural Born Subject in British common law.

    Under that definition, someone only had to be born in the British realm. The number of parents who were citizens was irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  3. smrstrauss - So with regard to your first comment, [...Blackstone, the British legal scholar, who wrote at about 1770 that a Natural Born Subject under British common law is merely someone who is born in the British realm...] Barack Obama II would qualify as a Natural Born Subject of Great Britain by virtue of his father. This would also agree with British law in affect at the time of his birth.

    With regards to Lindsey, and Hatch, if you believe them, then there is no difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. What is relevant is the original meaning of the drafters and not the interpretation of those who would seek to mask that meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As much as I would love there to be some reason that Obama could not be president, this is not one of them. Any one born in the United States or the Territories, is a Natural Born Citizen of the USA - now, if we could just find the original birth certificate proving that Obama was born in Hawaii, there would be no question. I'm more suspicious of the reasons that Obama has kept his birth certificat secret - is it possible that his mother had converted to Islam, making him a Muslim at birth also?

    ReplyDelete
  5. smrstrauss - With regard to your 2nd comment it would be safe to say that if two Aliens landed in the United States from let's say Mars, and had a child, then that child could someday become President. I know that's silly, but if two Illegal Aliens from say, Mexico, come to the US, and have a child, is this child a natural born citizen too? Would the child of illegal aliens be equal to a child born in the US of two US Citizen parents?

    The intent of our founding fathers was and is clear, that no Commander In Chief would have the potential for dual allegiances. Being 'born' with dual citizenship, and possible allegiances to Mexico, Kenya, or any other nation would thus not disqualify one from becoming a Senator, Congressman, or even Governor, but when it comes to POTUS, and CIC the Constitution was very specific.

    ReplyDelete
  6. SWWBO - I beg to differ. Anyone born in the United States or it's territories is a "Citizen" by birth, and not necessarily a "Natural Born Citizen".

    In order to be considered a Natural Born Citizen, both parents had to be US Citizens at the time of birth. Thus, the 'grandfather clause'.

    If what you say is true then the requirements to be a Congressman, Senator, and President are all the same, and the term Natural Born Citizen has the same meaning as Citizen. I would contend that if there was no difference then the Constitution would not contain the term "Natural Born Citizen" in Article II, and meare "Citizen" in Article I.

    ReplyDelete
  7. British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.

    On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:


    1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963...

    2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

    As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama's father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama's father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.


    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: "What is relevant is the original meaning of the drafters and not the interpretation of those who would seek to mask that meaning."

    I agree, but I think the majority of them used the common language meaning of "Natural Born Citizen," not the SPECIAL meaning of Vattel. If they had meant a special meaning, they would have been very clear about it.

    If Common Law was well understood to make anyone born in Britain a British Natural Born Subject, the framers would not have used "Natural Born Citizen" and think that anyone who read it would grasp that they meant the Vattel definition and not the Common Law Definition.

    And that is why so many experts including Senators Lindsey and Hatch, and the Law reviews, and the Wong case hold that "Natural Born citizen" means anyone born in the USA.

    As to the children of illegal aliens. If the common law, and the Wong case and all precedent so far has held that ANYONE born in the USA is a natural born citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomants), then they would be too.

    Do we blame the kids for the sins of their parents? And would the children of illegal aliens be eligible to be president? Well, why not? Do you want to take away the rights of a qualified person (who WAS born in the USA) as well as the rights of the people who vote for her or him?

    SWWBO is absolutely right!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re: "The intent of our founding fathers was and is clear, that no Commander In Chief would have the potential for dual allegiances. Being 'born' with dual citizenship, and possible allegiances to Mexico, Kenya, or any other nation would thus not disqualify one from becoming a Senator, Congressman, or even Governor, but when it comes to POTUS, and CIC the Constitution was very specific."

    Answer: "There is nothing in the Constitution specifically barring children who at one time held dual nationality from being president.

    Some people may think that the founders were worried about that. But what is the evidence?

    Article II of the Constitution allows any citizen of the USA before the Constitution was approved to be president (35 years and 14 a resident too, of course). But consider who it does not bar. It makes no mention of barring traitors. A traitor to the USA would legally be allowed to be president, including Benedict Arnold--who was not merely a citizen but a third-generation American. It makes no mention of barring torries. Remember the torries from American History? They were the guys who fought against the revolution. Yet under Article II they would have been allowed to be president, so long as they were citizens, 35 and 14 a resident.

    So where is the evidence that the Framers were really concerned about divided loyalties?

    Moreover, you next have to prove that if they were concerned about divided loyalties that the fact that someone was at one time a dual national and is not NOW a dual national constitutes dual loyalties.

    Then you have to get past being laughed at. The idea that a parent's loyalty is passed on to a child is rather dated. Today (or even in the 18th century) we might ask: "If my father was a Baptist, does that mean that I have to be a Baptist for the rest of my life?"

    Then there is this question. If you hold that Natural Born Citizen requires two parents who were citizens as well as being born in the USA, does that mean that if my parents were naturalized one day before I was born, that makes me qualified, and if one of them was naturalized one day after I was born I am not qualified? What is the real difference?

    NO, it is much simpler to go with the Common Law definition, which is what everyone is doing. Moreover, the only authority that legally could decide that Vattel is the real authority in this case and the British Common Law is not the right definition is the Supreme Court.

    Do you really think that you have five votes? I doubt there is even four votes to consider the case. Why not? Because the strict constructionists would say "if the framers had really meant two parents who are citizens, they would have said 'two parents who are citizens.'"

    ReplyDelete
  10. smrstrauss - I have read the Wong case and it did not address "Natural Born Citizens" because the question was citizenship. I addressed much of this in a previous blog. Am I really to believe that our founding fathers drafted our Constitution based on British law? I don't think so. Please refer to my previous post which was more thorough. This one was meant to be short and to the point.

    Your final paragraph is completely anti-American. You would potentially create a situation where a President of the United States has parents and other members of his/her family living in another country. And you would think there could not possibly be a conflict of interest or allegiance because afterall, the poor kid was born on U.S. soil. As Vattel stated:

    "...if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country..."

    Thus meaning that the place of one's birth is not necessarily controlling. Being born in the USA of parents who were Citizens at the time avoids any potential conflicts.


    From Pevious Post:
    "Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges."

    http://larrymwalkerjr.blogspot.com/2009/01/citizen-vs-natural-born-citizen-for.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Re: “I have read the Wong case and it did not address "Natural Born Citizens" because the question was citizenship.”

    Answer: It is absolutely true that the Wong case concerned citizenship. There have never been any Supreme Court cases dealing with the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” in the sense of Article II.

    However, it is useful to ask what evidence is there that “Natural Born Citizen” in Article II is a special meaning of the phrase? Fourteen years means 14 years, and 35 years means 35 years. So why should “Natural Born Citizen” not mean the same thing as “Natural Born Citizen” in the most common use of the term? And what is the most common use of the term: The common law. It is far more common than Vattel.

    If the framers had meant to use the Vattel meaning, they could easily have said so, but they didn’t.

    So, the Wong case establishes the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” in the context of a citizenship case. But, barring something in the Constitution that says that a Natural Born Citizen is NOT the same thing as a natural born citizen in a citizenship case, the Wong definition is the probable definition.

    Re: “Am I really to believe that our founding fathers drafted our Constitution based on British law?”

    Answer: If we have to decide whether they based a section on Vattel, a Swiss theorist, or on British law, the latter is more likely.

    This is especially true since the Vattel definition is so very much different from what was commonly understood to be the meaning of “Natural Born.” If before the Constitution major states such as Virginia, New York or Pennsylvania, required that children born in the state had to have two parents who were already born in the State or hade already been naturalized to be citizens at birth, then the Vattel meaning would be probable. But this is not the case; the reverse is the case.

    Re: “You would potentially create a situation where a President of the United States has parents and other members of his/her family living in another country. And you would think there could not possibly be a conflict of interest or allegiance because afterall, the poor kid was born on U.S. soil.”

    We have to assume in this case that the majority of voters voted for the kid. The kid has parents and other relatives living in another country. The voters say that they do not care. You say that this creates a divided loyalty. The voters say that they disagree. Under this situation, is there anything very obvious in the Constitution that says that the election can be taken away from the poor kid? No. If he were born in a foreign country, sure it could be taken away. But if he was born in the USA and the voters picked him, then no. And, what is un-American about that?

    Re: "...if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country..."

    Answer: That is what Vattel said.

    But 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 “generally speaking” refers to very limited exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats).

    ReplyDelete
  12. "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 addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency, but most were the children of British subjects. Knowing that that eliminated them from being natural born and, thus, from eligibility, they included the grandfather clause which expired when the last person alive at the time of the ratification of the Constitution died. So, being a native born citizen is not the same as being natural born. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

    When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th ammendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, "Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority." The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared "And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US." Neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents' citizenship.

    This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas. Alexander Porter wrote an article over 100 years ago in which he declares that the framers drew upon this difference in the law of heredity and territorial allegiance to define a third class of citizen applicable only to the eligibility to hold the office of president. According to Morse, "the framers thought it wise to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance only to the US at the time of birth." He goes on to say that the eligibility of the president "was scarcely intended to bar the children of American citizens, whether born at sea or in foreign territory."

    The concept of citizenship by blood also precludes the equation of natural born with native born as the latter strictly demands geographical requirements.

    Many argue that Barack Obama was eligible to be a state senator and a US senator and could not suddenly be ineligible to be president, but that is exactly the case. If this premise were true, Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not.

    Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president. No birth certificate is needed as proof, and it doesn't matter at all where Obama was born. His father's non-citizenship is all the law requires. He is ineligible from the beginning, meaning he is NOT the president and can be removed from office without any impeachment or trial, it requires only a ruling by the SCOTUS. HE is, in fact, a usurper, a pretender or a fake.

    So why has Obama been shepharded into our highest elected office regardless of the fact that he is, according to his own statements and the law of the land, ineligible for that office? It is because those whose responsibility it is to insure the eligibility of the president, the SCOTUS, has chosen, in violation of the law, not to override the voters that voted for Obama. They are are cowards who violate their sworn oath rather than make an unpopular ruling. We are no longer a republic ruled by law, but, instead have become a democracy with rules made up as we go along, never to be written as law.

    In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Not once did the SCOTUS rule Obama was eligible or even consider whether he was or not, rather they dismissed each case on the technicality of plaitiff's lack of standing to file the case.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re: "The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be natural born, otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary.The writers and delegates, having been born in the US, wanted to be eligible for the presidency. "

    The intent of the grandfather clause was to make someone who was NOT born in the USA eligible to be president. That person was Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. According to the Constitution he would have been eligible, but he never got to be president because of the duel. Still, the purpose was to make Hamilton eligible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Re Bingham.

    He was just one of the people who vote for the 14th Amendment. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is now settled by the Wong case, which holds that having two parents who are citizens is not necessary to be a Natural Born Citizen, the same thing as a Natural Born Subject under British common law.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re: "This concept of citizenship by blood as opposed to citizenship by geography is a concept with a long history in British common law. A law passed in 1677 says that natural born citizens are those persons born to British citizens, including those born overseas."

    Yes, this law added the children of persons born to British citizens regardless of where the birth took place to the already existing group of Natural Born Subjects, those that were born in the British realm. But it did not take away the right of anyone (regardless of the number of British parents) who was born in the British realm to be a Natural Born Subject.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Re: "Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, would also be eligible to be president, and it is established that he is not."

    Agreed, but not because Schwarzenegger was born in the USA. He was born in Austria and he is a naturalized US citizen. Article II says "natural born citizen"--that means NOT a naturalized citizen, but it also means anyone who is a Natural Born Citizen. And who is a Natural Born Citizen? Someone who was born in t he USA.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Re: "Barack Obama has proudly and publicly stated that his father was a citizen of Kenya. We know his mother was eigteen years old when he was born. These two facts make Obama ineligible to be president."

    Yes his father was a citizen of Kenya. But if Obama was born in Hawaii, and he was, both of his parents could have been born in Kenya and he would still be a Natural Born Citizen. Natural Born Citizen is the same thing as Natural Born Subject under British common law, and that means born in the country.

    You know, of course, that the Chief Justice of the United States has already sworn in Obama, and that Obama's election was certified by Congress, and that such leaders of the Republican Party as McCain accept that he is president.

    None of these would mean anything if the Supreme Court ruled that Obama was not eligible, but I am saying that the chances of the Supreme Court taking the case and ruling against Obama are virtually nil.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Re: "In each and every case dismissed by the SCOTUS challenging Obama's eligibility the reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiff's claim."

    To be sure. But let's say I bring a case challenging the Constitutionality of the law of gravity. The Supreme Court turns down the case. That's not on the merits. It's that the case is laughable.

    Same thing on the "you gotta have two US parents" theory. If it doesn't get four justices to take the case, it never will be heard. That has the same effect as if four justices voted to hear the case and then five voted against the theory.

    I don't think that there are four votes to hear the case. Even the strict constructionist justices would vote against the Vattel theory because, they would say, if the framers had meant that to be a Natural Born Citizen required two US parents under Article II, they framers would have written: "requires two US parents."

    ReplyDelete
  19. [The intent of the grandfather clause was to make someone who was NOT born in the USA eligible to be president.]

    That doesn't go along with your own reasoning as the grandfather clause states, "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". If one was not born in the USA then how could that one be a Citizen?

    Following that reasoning it would not matter if Obama was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother (under age), as long as his mother was American then Obama would be a U.S. Citizen. This would not be true today, or at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution.

    There is a fundamental difference between a Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen. The 14th Amendment defines Citizenship, but it does not seek to define a Natural Born Citizen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "..the 14th Amendment. The meaning of the 14th Amendment is now settled by the Wong case, which holds that having two parents who are citizens is not necessary to be a Natural Born Citizen.."

    I do not find the term Natural Born Citizen in the 14th Amendment. The amendment is titled, "Citizens Rights". It does not define the term used in Article 2, Section 1, nor state that this was its intent. Article I contains the word Citizen as qualification to be a Representative or Senator. Article 2 contains the word Natural-Born-Citizen as qualification to be President.

    14th Amendment - "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    ReplyDelete
  21. [Agreed, but not because Schwarzenegger was born in the USA. He was born in Austria and he is a naturalized US citizen.]

    Yet according to your use of the 14th Amendment, a Naturalized Citizen has the same rights as all persons born in the United States.

    Thus indicating that there is a 3rd tier of citizenship. Natural Born Citizens who were born in the US or it's Territories and possessions of parents who were citizens.

    As per your logic, if two British subjects have a child in the United States, that child would be a US Citizen (agreed), yet would also be a British subject at birth. Thus which would control? Is this child both a Natural Born British and American citizen? I say neither. Since not born of American parents, the child is not Natural Born, and since not born in British possessions, not a natural born Brit.

    As per Vattel, "We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born." However, he was not referring to a Natural Born Citizen in this point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. [The Supreme Court turns down the case. That's not on the merits. It's that the case is laughable.]

    You would not know why the Supreme Court refused to try a case. The court decides to hear a small fraction of the number of cases filed. No opinions are issued from such decisions. It could very well be that the reason no case has been heard was due to some fundamental flaw in the way the argument was presented, or the credibility of the plaintiff, none of which would be known to you or I.

    Having won a case in State Supreme Court after motioning the same for reconsideration I saw the court go from 5 to 3 against, with a dissent by the Chief Justice, to unanimous in my favor. Why? Because we read the decision and the dissenting opinion and then honed in on a point that was being overlooked by the five. Our argument needed to be refined.

    Perhaps the SCOTUS' refusal to grant a full hearing is mearly due to the cowardice of 4 or 5 justices, and not because the case is frivolous. Or perhaps the attorney's have been unable to hone in on the main point, "Natural Born Citizenship".

    So far, not one case has asked the Court to define the term "Natural Born Citizen" as it relates to Obama. The cases to date have been more less based on scatter shots and quasi-conspiracy theories.

    If I was to bring a case tomorrow, it would be based on forcing the court to define the term Natural Born Citizen. I would ask the court to define the term, and then I would ask them to rule on whether or not Obama meets that qualification.

    That's what I would do, and may do if someone doesn't wake up and beat me to the punch.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "But if Obama was born in Hawaii, and he was, both of his parents could have been born in Kenya and he would still be a Natural Born Citizen"

    If you believe this then you advocate that there is no difference between a Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. And since a Naturalized Citizen is equal to a Citizen then there is no difference between the three in your reasoning.

    If both his parents were born in Kenya, and if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he would be a Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen. You have no basis for calling him natural born, other than your belief that the word 'natural' means born on US Soil. If we are going to make up definitions based on how we think in the 21st Century, then perhaps the term Natural Born could be defined as those who were:

    1. Not born by C-Section
    2. Not born mentally retarded
    3. Born of parents of the same race
    4. Born on US Soil
    5. Born of parents who were citizens

    Pick your definition. However, at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, following the American Revolution, the term was well known to mean, those born of Citizens, most of whom had yet to be born.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "It could very well be that the reason no case has been heard is due to some fundamental flaw in the way the argument was presented.."

    Leo Donofrio had the best case regarding Obama not meeting the definition of a Natural Born Citizen, yet his case was initially filed against the New Jersey Secretary of State, and appealed to the Supreme Court based on having been improperly dismissed by the State Court.

    Therefore, the Supreme Court would have had to bring charges against a State Court Justice because that was the reason for the appeal.

    If I sue you accusing you of not having properly verified whether Obama met the qualifications under Article 2, Section 1, then the issue at hand would be my ability to sue you, and your responsibility for vetting Obama.

    If I want the SCOTUS to determine whether Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, then I need to bring a case into "Federal" Court against the United States Government, or the President of the United States, or the US Congress, or Senate, and not some Secretary of State, or political party official.

    If proper checks and balances are to be utilized, then one must seek to empower the SCOTUS to 'check' the Legislative, and/or Executive Banch. The only way to do this is to bring a case directly against one or the other, at the Federal level.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So according to smrstrauss the King of Britain could visit the US, conceive a child with an American woman, take the child back to Britain and rear him. Then that child, a natural born citizen according to smrstrauss, could return to the US, reside for 14 years, and then become President. So we could wind up with a President whose father is the King of Britain.

    Further, we could have a President whose brother is the Prime Minister of Israel, or Iran, or any other country according to smstrauss. Do you think there would not be any potential conflict of allegiances under this scenario?

    Our founding fathers knew better and drafted the Constitution in a way that this could never happen. If one is born of Parents who are citizens, and on US soil that individual is a Natural Born Citizen and is eligible to be our President and Commander in chief. Do we need a Commander in Chief whose relatives are living in a country that we may have to engage in war some day? Do we need a Commander in Chief who may place the interests of another nation ahead of those of the United States?

    We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Our founding fathers created the Electoral College because they did not trust leaving even the election up to the people. If the people had their way, they could be fooled into voting for the overthrow of their own Republic.

    Would our founding fathers leave us at the mercy of foreign influence?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Re: “So according to smrstrauss the King of Britain could visit the US, conceive a child with an American woman, take the child back to Britain and rear him. Then that child, a natural born citizen according to smrstrauss, could return to the US, reside for 14 years, and then become President. So we could wind up with a President whose father is the King of Britain.”

    The answer to that is a proud YES. Not only that, the father could be the Emperor of Japan.

    The father could be a murderer. The father could be a Republican. The father could be unknown. The father could be a test-tube sperm. The father could be an illegal alien. The father could be a bigamist. The mother could be a bigamist. There is nothing in the words of the Constitution that bars anyone from being president based on her or his father or mother. So long as the child was born in the USA, is 35, was a resident of the USA for 14 years, and was born in the USA, she or he is eligible. One other requirement, of course, we have to ELECT that person. We wouldn’t elect the child of a murderer or of a bigamist or, most likely, a test-tube sperm, but we have the right to do so.

    This is why the Congress approved the vote of the electoral college, and it is why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Obama. And it is why Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said in a letter to constituents : “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent).

    I believe that there are at least five votes on the Supreme Court that hold the same view. Probably more. I doubt there are even four votes to take such a case.

    Re: “[The intent of the grandfather clause was to make someone who was NOT born in the USA eligible to be president.] That doesn't go along with your own reasoning as the grandfather clause states, "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". If one was not born in the USA then how could that one be a Citizen?

    I merely pointed out the intend of the grandfather clause. It was nothing exotic like the idea that the founders thought that they were British, so they grandfathered themselves. They didn’t think that they were British; they were sure that they were American, they were not sure of Hamiliton, so they grandfathered him.

    This has little relevance after the grandfather clause expired, but it dismisses any theories that the grandfather clause had some special meaning on the term “Natural Born Citizen.”

    It also demonstrates that the framers were not theorists. They were practical. The evidence is that they had no doubt that Hamilton would be loyal to the USA regardless of his place of birth (he was born in the island of Nevis) and regardless that his parents were not US citizens

    Re: “Following that reasoning it would not matter if Obama was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother (under age), as long as his mother was American then Obama would be a U.S. Citizen.’

    Some hold this. I do not. I hold that a person must be born in the USA, though a US military base overseas counts as that. As I commented earlier, the grandfather clause does not impact this. The grandfather clause expired. However, as I said earlier, the fact that the framers wanted to make Hamilton eligible shows that they were really not all that concerned with the theory that Hamilton had divided loyalty because of his place of birth and his British parents.

    Re: “There is a fundamental difference between a Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen. The 14th Amendment defines Citizenship, but it does not seek to define a Natural Born Citizen.”

    Yes the 14th Amendment refers only to ordinary citizenship. It does not specifically say that it amends Article II. However, it creates only two categories of citizens, naturalized and born in the USA. The question is whether the “born in the USA” means the same thing as “Natural Born Citizen.” By itself, the 14th does not prove that they are the same thing. However, since the British Common Law defined a “Natural Born Subject” as someone who was born in the realm, and the 14th has a category of citizen who is born in the USA (without two parents who are already citizens), this is confirmation that in the USA a Natural Born Citizen is just what a Natural Born Subject was—someone who was born in the USA.

    Re: “Yet according to your use of the 14th Amendment, a Naturalized Citizen has the same rights as all persons born in the United States.”

    You make an excellent point. There are some who believe that Naturalized citizens should have the same rights to be president as those who are born here. And your point that the 14th says that they have the same rights seems to substantiate it. However, this is a different matter. As Yale Law Review pointed out, there are questions about whether children of US parents born overseas are eligible, and there are certainly questions over whether naturalized citizens are eligible. These can only be settled by other law cases or a amendment to the Constitution.

    But what we are discussing today is the question of whether someone born in the USA is eligible, and as Yale Law Review says: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” Obama was born in the United States.

    Re: “Thus indicating that there is a 3rd tier of citizenship. Natural Born Citizens who were born in the US or it's Territories and possessions of parents who were citizens.”

    I disagree. The 14th Amendment has only two tiers of citizens, naturalized and natural born. It is you who think that to be Natural Born you have to have two parents who were citizens at the time of birth. This would create three tiers, if it were true, but it is not true. There are only two tiers.

    Re: ‘As per your logic, if two British subjects have a child in the United States, that child would be a US Citizen (agreed), yet would also be a British subject at birth. Thus which would control? Is this child both a Natural Born British and American citizen? I say neither. Since not born of American parents, the child is not Natural Born, and since not born in British possessions, not a natural born Brit.”

    Which would control? We have had many law cases dealing with dual citizenship, and in them we have always held that a dual citizen has all the rights and responsibilities of a US citizen. Since there are two categories of US citizen, natural born and naturalized, the rights and responsibilities are the ones that apply in that situation. Schwarzenegger, for example, is STILL a dual national. He has retained his Austrian citizenship. Which law applies? Is he both US and Austrian? (Yes). Can he vote in the USA? (Yes). Can he vote in Austria? (No, we would take away his citizenship.) Is he eligible to be president? (No, he was naturalized). Would he be eligible to be president if he were born in the USA and had dual nationality because of Austrian law? (Yes.)

    The simple answer is that the Constitution does not refer to dual nationality, and in Obamas’ case (unlike Schwarzenegger), his dual nationality expired. Schwarzenegger’s dual nationality is real dual nationality. Obama’s dual nationality existed for a time and ended. If dual nationality affected the situation at all, which it doesn’t, the fact that it ended would affect the case. The idea that having a dual nationality at one time and that it affects forever is a little like saying that a bond to someone’s first spouse does not end with the divorce.

    Re: “You would not know why the Supreme Court refused to try a case. The court decides to hear a small fraction of the number of cases filed.”

    Agreed. We never know whether a case has been turned down because it is not a good constitutional case or because the guys who bring the case cannot get even four votes to call the case to a hearing. The six or more who vote against calling the case may do so for any reason, including that it is frivolous (as my example on the law of gravity was), AND, the equally important reason that they disagree with the case.

    The effect is the same. My point is that IF a case is brought (so far there is nothing pending) that claims that Obama has to have two US parents, and the Supreme Court never takes up the matter, the effect in law would be just what we have now, leaving us with the commonly held and highly popular idea that anyone born in the USA can be president (so long as 35 years and 14 in residence, of course.)

    Re: “Having won a case in State Supreme Court after motioning the same for reconsideration I saw the court go from 5 to 3 against, with a dissent by the Chief Justice, to unanimous in my favor. Why? Because we read the decision and the dissenting opinion and then honed in on a point that was being overlooked by the five. Our argument needed to be refined.”

    I am glad to hear it. And this indicates that you are good at your profession. But I do not change my opinion that in the case we are discussing that there are five possible votes that you can pick up to win it. Too much would have to go in your favor. Five justices would have to be convinced that Article II referred to Vattel and not to Common Law. Five justices would have to be convinced that even if the framers were thinking that Vattel is the definition to use, they still did not make that clear—when they could have said “no one with dual nationality is eligible,” or “no one who does not have two US parents is eligible.” Five justices would have to be convinced that dual nationality at birth affects the person for a lifetime even if the dual nationality expires. Too hard.

    Re: “Perhaps the SCOTUS' refusal to grant a full hearing is mearly due to the cowardice of 4 or 5 justices…”

    Answer: And your point? If they are cowards, how are you going to win? In fact, for the system to work, we have to assume that they are not cowards and that a case can be brought. Or else, you might as well give up now. To be sure, if they disagree with you, you have the right to call them “cowards,” but that is merely venting feelings.

    Re: ‘If I was to bring a case tomorrow, it would be based on forcing the court to define the term Natural Born Citizen. I would ask the court to define the term, and then I would ask them to rule on whether or not Obama meets that qualification.”

    Good, you have every right to bring such a case, and I’m sure someone will. Our discussion has not been on whether there is a right to bring a case. That is without question. I’m arguing that the chance of winning such a case is virtually nil.

    Re: If both his parents were born in Kenya, and if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he would be a Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen

    We disagree. If both parents were born in Mexico, or Russia, or Communist North Korea, of if his father were the Emperor of Japan, and he was born in the USA, he would be a Natural Born Citizen. Only if he was born in Kenya, regardless of the number of parents who are American, would there be any question that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. But this is not the case; he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “You have no basis for calling him natural born, other than your belief that the word 'natural' means born on US Soil.”

    My basis is the British Common Law and the Wong case, which ruled that the British term “Natural Born Subject” is the same thing as “Natural Born Citizen.” That plus the vast majority of legal experts.

    Re: "Would our founding fathers leave us at the mercy of foreign influence?'

    There are two answers to that: (1) if they didn't want us to be at the "mercy of foreign influence," they would have said so; and (2) if they did NOT bar Tories (the guys who actually fought against the US Revolution) then they must have figured that things like being a Tory or "having foreign influence" was something that we could settle for ourselves.

    They trusted us. We should trust ourselves too.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Re: “So according to smrstrauss the King of Britain could visit the US, conceive a child with an American woman, take the child back to Britain and rear him. Then that child, a natural born citizen according to smrstrauss, could return to the US, reside for 14 years, and then become President. So we could wind up with a President whose father is the King of Britain.”

    The answer to that is a proud YES. Not only that, the father could be the Emperor of Japan.

    The father could be a murderer. The father could be a Republican. The father could be unknown. The father could be a test-tube sperm. The father could be an illegal alien. The father could be a bigamist. The mother could be a bigamist. There is nothing in the words of the Constitution that bars anyone from being president based on her or his father or mother. So long as the child was born in the USA, is 35, was a resident of the USA for 14 years, and was born in the USA, she or he is eligible. One other requirement, of course, we have to ELECT that person. We wouldn’t elect the child of a murderer or of a bigamist or, most likely, a test-tube sperm, but we have the right to do so.

    This is why the Congress approved the vote of the electoral college, and it is why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court swore in Obama. And it is why Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said in a letter to constituents : “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent).

    I believe that there are at least five votes on the Supreme Court that hold the same view. Probably more. I doubt there are even four votes to take such a case.

    Re: “[The intent of the grandfather clause was to make someone who was NOT born in the USA eligible to be president.] That doesn't go along with your own reasoning as the grandfather clause states, "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". If one was not born in the USA then how could that one be a Citizen?

    I merely pointed out the intend of the grandfather clause. It was nothing exotic like the idea that the founders thought that they were British, so they grandfathered themselves. They didn’t think that they were British; they were sure that they were American, they were not sure of Hamiliton, so they grandfathered him.

    This has little relevance after the grandfather clause expired, but it dismisses any theories that the grandfather clause had some special meaning on the term “Natural Born Citizen.”

    It also demonstrates that the framers were not theorists. They were practical. The evidence is that they had no doubt that Hamilton would be loyal to the USA regardless of his place of birth (he was born in the island of Nevis) and regardless that his parents were not US citizens

    Re: “Following that reasoning it would not matter if Obama was born in Kenya to a Kenyan father and an American mother (under age), as long as his mother was American then Obama would be a U.S. Citizen.’

    Some hold this. I do not. I hold that a person must be born in the USA, though a US military base overseas counts as that. As I commented earlier, the grandfather clause does not impact this. The grandfather clause expired. However, as I said earlier, the fact that the framers wanted to make Hamilton eligible shows that they were really not all that concerned with the theory that Hamilton had divided loyalty because of his place of birth and his British parents.

    Re: “There is a fundamental difference between a Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen. The 14th Amendment defines Citizenship, but it does not seek to define a Natural Born Citizen.”

    Yes the 14th Amendment refers only to ordinary citizenship. It does not specifically say that it amends Article II. However, it creates only two categories of citizens, naturalized and born in the USA. The question is whether the “born in the USA” means the same thing as “Natural Born Citizen.” By itself, the 14th does not prove that they are the same thing. However, since the British Common Law defined a “Natural Born Subject” as someone who was born in the realm, and the 14th has a category of citizen who is born in the USA (without two parents who are already citizens), this is confirmation that in the USA a Natural Born Citizen is just what a Natural Born Subject was—someone who was born in the USA.

    Re: “Yet according to your use of the 14th Amendment, a Naturalized Citizen has the same rights as all persons born in the United States.”

    You make an excellent point. There are some who believe that Naturalized citizens should have the same rights to be president as those who are born here. And your point that the 14th says that they have the same rights seems to substantiate it. However, this is a different matter. As Yale Law Review pointed out, there are questions about whether children of US parents born overseas are eligible, and there are certainly questions over whether naturalized citizens are eligible. These can only be settled by other law cases or a amendment to the Constitution.

    But what we are discussing today is the question of whether someone born in the USA is eligible, and as Yale Law Review says: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” Obama was born in the United States.

    Re: “Thus indicating that there is a 3rd tier of citizenship. Natural Born Citizens who were born in the US or it's Territories and possessions of parents who were citizens.”

    I disagree. The 14th Amendment has only two tiers of citizens, naturalized and natural born. It is you who think that to be Natural Born you have to have two parents who were citizens at the time of birth. This would create three tiers, if it were true, but it is not true. There are only two tiers.

    Re: ‘As per your logic, if two British subjects have a child in the United States, that child would be a US Citizen (agreed), yet would also be a British subject at birth. Thus which would control? Is this child both a Natural Born British and American citizen? I say neither. Since not born of American parents, the child is not Natural Born, and since not born in British possessions, not a natural born Brit.”

    Which would control? We have had many law cases dealing with dual citizenship, and in them we have always held that a dual citizen has all the rights and responsibilities of a US citizen. Since there are two categories of US citizen, natural born and naturalized, the rights and responsibilities are the ones that apply in that situation. Schwarzenegger, for example, is STILL a dual national. He has retained his Austrian citizenship. Which law applies? Is he both US and Austrian? (Yes). Can he vote in the USA? (Yes). Can he vote in Austria? (No, we would take away his citizenship.) Is he eligible to be president? (No, he was naturalized). Would he be eligible to be president if he were born in the USA and had dual nationality because of Austrian law? (Yes.)

    The simple answer is that the Constitution does not refer to dual nationality, and in Obamas’ case (unlike Schwarzenegger), his dual nationality expired. Schwarzenegger’s dual nationality is real dual nationality. Obama’s dual nationality existed for a time and ended. If dual nationality affected the situation at all, which it doesn’t, the fact that it ended would affect the case. The idea that having a dual nationality at one time and that it affects forever is a little like saying that a bond to someone’s first spouse does not end with the divorce.

    Re: “You would not know why the Supreme Court refused to try a case. The court decides to hear a small fraction of the number of cases filed.”

    Agreed. We never know whether a case has been turned down because it is not a good constitutional case or because the guys who bring the case cannot get even four votes to call the case to a hearing. The six or more who vote against calling the case may do so for any reason, including that it is frivolous (as my example on the law of gravity was), AND, the equally important reason that they disagree with the case.

    The effect is the same. My point is that IF a case is brought (so far there is nothing pending) that claims that Obama has to have two US parents, and the Supreme Court never takes up the matter, the effect in law would be just what we have now, leaving us with the commonly held and highly popular idea that anyone born in the USA can be president (so long as 35 years and 14 in residence, of course.)

    Re: “Having won a case in State Supreme Court after motioning the same for reconsideration I saw the court go from 5 to 3 against, with a dissent by the Chief Justice, to unanimous in my favor. Why? Because we read the decision and the dissenting opinion and then honed in on a point that was being overlooked by the five. Our argument needed to be refined.”

    I am glad to hear it. And this indicates that you are good at your profession. But I do not change my opinion that in the case we are discussing that there are five possible votes that you can pick up to win it. Too much would have to go in your favor. Five justices would have to be convinced that Article II referred to Vattel and not to Common Law. Five justices would have to be convinced that even if the framers were thinking that Vattel is the definition to use, they still did not make that clear—when they could have said “no one with dual nationality is eligible,” or “no one who does not have two US parents is eligible.” Five justices would have to be convinced that dual nationality at birth affects the person for a lifetime even if the dual nationality expires. Too hard.

    Re: “Perhaps the SCOTUS' refusal to grant a full hearing is mearly due to the cowardice of 4 or 5 justices…”

    Answer: And your point? If they are cowards, how are you going to win? In fact, for the system to work, we have to assume that they are not cowards and that a case can be brought. Or else, you might as well give up now. To be sure, if they disagree with you, you have the right to call them “cowards,” but that is merely venting feelings.

    Re: ‘If I was to bring a case tomorrow, it would be based on forcing the court to define the term Natural Born Citizen. I would ask the court to define the term, and then I would ask them to rule on whether or not Obama meets that qualification.”

    Good, you have every right to bring such a case, and I’m sure someone will. Our discussion has not been on whether there is a right to bring a case. That is without question. I’m arguing that the chance of winning such a case is virtually nil.

    Re: If both his parents were born in Kenya, and if Obama was born in Hawaii, then he would be a Citizen, not a Natural Born Citizen

    We disagree. If both parents were born in Mexico, or Russia, or Communist North Korea, of if his father were the Emperor of Japan, and he was born in the USA, he would be a Natural Born Citizen. Only if he was born in Kenya, regardless of the number of parents who are American, would there be any question that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. But this is not the case; he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “You have no basis for calling him natural born, other than your belief that the word 'natural' means born on US Soil.”

    My basis is the British Common Law and the Wong case, which ruled that the British term “Natural Born Subject” is the same thing as “Natural Born Citizen.” That plus the vast majority of legal experts.

    Re: "Our founding fathers created the Electoral College because they did not trust leaving even the election up to the people.'

    Good point. Obama won the overwhelming majority of electoral votes.

    Re "Would our founding fathers leave us at the mercy of foreign influence?"

    There are two answers to this question: (1) If they had wanted us not to be at the mercy of foreign influence, they would have written something into the document that said it specifically, such as "no dual nationals" or "you gotta have two US parents," but they didn't; and, (2) No. Since they allowed even Tories (remember Tories, the guys who actually fought against the Rebolution?) to be elected, they must have figured that we, the people that they left the Constitution for, would figure things out like that. They figured that we wouldn't vote for Tories or for people with divided loyalties, and we didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  28. In April of 2008 the U.S. Senate concured with the definition of Vattel via Senate Resolution 511 stating that a 'natural born citizen' is a child who is born of American citizens with an 's'.

    Barack Obama clearly does not meet that definition no matter where he was born. That you would not be worried about the United States being diluted into some 'world' nation state is insane, any other country in the world that would allow such insanity would be short lived.

    As our Senators have clearly forgotten or overlooked their own unanimous resolutions, it is incumbent upon us Citizens to bring up the issue. Currenly 94 active military members have joined a suit being filed with the attorney general's office. This matter will be brought to a head by those who understand the original intent of the law.
    _____________________________________________

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. (Agreed to by Senate)

    SRES 511 ATS


    110th CONGRESS

    2d Session

    S. RES. 511
    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.


    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    April 10, 2008
    Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


    April 24, 2008
    Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment


    April 30, 2008
    Considered and agreed to


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

    RESOLUTION
    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

    Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it


    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  29. smrstrauss said...
    The answer to that [that if parent citizenship is irrelevant to qualify for 'natural born' citizenship, then the POTUS could have the King of England as his/her father] is a proud YES. Not only that, the father could be the Emperor of Japan... ...The father could be an illegal alien. The father could be a bigamist... ...We wouldn’t elect the child of a murderer or of a bigamist..."

    The irony is as entertaining as your position.

    Intended, or ignorant?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dani - Or a foreigner preying on the destruction of America.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Re: “In April of 2008 the U.S. Senate concured with the definition of Vattel via Senate Resolution 511 stating that a 'natural born citizen' is a child who is born of American citizens with an 's'. “

    Yes, the Senate (and to be legal, a law requires passage by BOTH houses of congress and signature by the president) passed an act ADDING the definition two US parents to the definition which had always existed, that a Natural Born Citizen is merely someone who was born in the USA. It did NOT (read the complete text of the resolution) make a new definition that someone had to have two US parents or, even more strictly, that someone had to have both two US parents and be born in the USA.

    Ironically, even Vattel is not clear on the requirement that there be two parents who are also of the country and be born in the country. He says parents at one point and then later “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a father who is a citizen…” True, we can presume that Obama’s father was not a citizen (though you cannot prove it without a DNA test), but if Vattel mentioned only one of the two parents as being the source of the nationality (the Father), then the fact that we allow the vote to women now has changed that. In other words, if there was ever a you gotta be born in the USA and have a father born in the USA rule (which I doubt), the 19th Amendment has changed that.

    I hold that to be a Natural Born Citizen is the same as the British Common Law, which held that to be a Natural Born Subject all you had to be was born in the British realm. But I’ll settle for one parent and being born in the country.


    Re: "Or a foreigner preying on the destruction of America."

    I think it is laughable that the Framers would have thought that a child at the instant of birth would be a foreigner all her or his life due to the citizenship of one parent at that moment. IF they did, they could easily have said "no children of foreigners," but they did not say it. So, what did they mean? They must have meant what the common law meant and what citizenship law was in the Colonies before the revolution--a citizen at birth does not require two parents who are also citizens but merely be born in the colony. Does this mean that a "Natural born citizen" is the same thing as a citizen at birth? What else can it mean?

    ReplyDelete
  32. To: SMRStrauss

    “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason

    What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean

    Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?

    Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

    Fourteenth Amendment

    Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

    This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.

    Natural-Born Citizen Defined

    One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.

    Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

    I am posting a new blog to continue this on a fresh slate.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Father's citizenship? Only the FATHER'S citizenship?

    What about the mother's citizenship. IF the framers believed with Vattel that to be a Natural Born citizen requires that the father be a citizen and that the child be born in the USA, for which there is no evidence. (Colonial laws on who became a citizen merely required birth in the colony). I repeat, IF the framers believed that the father must be a citizen, then the 19th Amendment to the Constitution has amended that concept, making it either mother or father.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Re: "subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

    This has always meant only the children of foreign diplomats.

    ReplyDelete