Defining Natural-Born Citizen
by P.A. Madison on November 18th, 2008
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country. 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 generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined,” and those “which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”
Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was simply an exercise of a States “numerous and indefinite” powers. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. James Madison said citizenship rules “have obtained in some of the States,” and “if such a law existed in South Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us” (question of Rep. William Smith being a citizen or not).
Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.
Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance to the King, however natural citizenship via birth could require being born to a British subject depending on the era in question. After independence this perpetual allegiance to the crown was abandoned for the principle of expatriation.
It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King as an individual upon birth for which could never be thrown off. Under the American system there was no individual ruler to owe a perpetual personal allegiance to.
Furthermore, unlike the British practice, States required everyone including aliens to take an oath of allegiance to the State as a condition of residency. Children born to these residents were considered born into the allegiance of the State. In addition to this, States also had specific laws that banned citizenship to alien born who were not resident aliens who had declared their allegiance. New York for example, responded through enactment of a law to the ruling in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) that had used common law rules of citizenship by birth to specifically exclude children born to “transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.”
In other words, unlike under the common law, birth by itself did not create allegiance to anyone due merely to locality.
Could a natural-born citizen perhaps be synonymous with the British term “natural-born subject”?
It is very doubtful the framers adopted the doctrine found under the old English doctrine of allegiance to the King from birth. The British doctrine could create double allegiances, something the founders considered improper and dangerous. The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their sole allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.
Under the old English common law, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all to the King that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.
Because Britain considered all who were born within the dominions of the crown to be its natural-born subjects even after becoming naturalized citizens of the United States, led to British vessels blockading American ports. Under the British blockade, every American ship entering or leaving was boarded by soldiers in search of British born subjects. At least 6,000 American citizens who were found to be British natural-born subjects were pressed into military service on behalf of the British Empire, and thus, the reason we went to war.
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,” which is vastly different from local jurisdiction due to physical location alone.
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 claim of allegiance.
The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
This remark by Howard puts his earlier citizenship clause remark into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to anyone else.”
Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes arguing the physical presence of being subject to laws silly because being subject to another countries laws while visiting makes no change to an aliens allegiance to their native country.
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.”
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.
This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the effect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:
Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues, and thus, making such a citizen indistinguishable from a naturalized citizen.
Conclusion
Extending citizenship to non-citizens through birth based solely upon locality is nothing more than mere municipal law that has no extra-territorial effect as proven from the English practice of it. On the other hand, citizenship by descent through the father is natural law and is recognized by all nations (what nation doesn’t recognize citizenship of children born wherever to their own citizens?). Thus, a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is recognized by law of nations rather than mere local recognition.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed this in 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”*
When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.
* Temporary sojourners like transient aliens were a description applied to aliens other than resident aliens. The difference being temporary aliens were here for temporary purposes, such as work, travel, visitation or school, who had no desire to become citizens or was prevented from becoming citizens by law. Resident aliens were those who desired to become citizens and had renounced their prior allegiances and had taken the legal steps to become citizens or reside within some state per state law.
UPDATE: In regards to questions about the citizenship of the mother: Mothers citizenship rarely ever influenced the citizenship of their children except in certain situations such as the father dying before the child was born or when the identity of the father was unknown.
Related: What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means
Related: Nothing Unusual about States Denying Citizenship to Alien Born Children
Related: Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?
In Reply to Mr Paul: No surprise here. Only way to get this before the SCOTUS is through someone with standing, like a Secty. of State who refuses to certify on the grounds he isn’t qualified.
In Reply to Mr Paul:
We only know that two cases were granted. We don’t know how many were dismissed. It’s probably dismissed but that’s not conclusive. No reason to jump the gun. Wait until Monday. The announcements are usually at 10 am I believe.
In Reply to JoeE:
Joe, I genuinely appreciate your objectivity and honesty. Your declaration to the Democratic party, and yet your tenacious clinging to the Constitution, is both refreshing and highly sought after.
I am an Independent who typically leans Republican. I do, however, have the obligation to pursue the truth which ever way it leads. Again, in these days of partisan and thoughtless allegiance, your objectivity is refreshing.
If I wore a hat I’d take it off to you. For now, however, we’ll see what the
Take care,
Nelson Roth
Dayton, TN
In Reply to Nelson Roth:
Thank you very much for your kind remarks. I not only appreciate them, I concur with your sentiments expressed by them. I suspect we would take our hats off to each other!
Kindest regards
FAQ on Obama’s Birth
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth
Visit for a heads-up on the issues.
An update of my understanding after much research:
All I need to do was a little research on the internet to figure out that the type of citizenship required for the President is more restrictive than any other type of citizenship in order to make sure he does not have foreign allegiances or is subject to foreign intrigue. Senators and Representatives have a citizenship requirement that is a compromise between exclusion of naturalized citizens and a “hasty admission of them”Â, so Senators and Representatives must have been citizens for a certain number of years before they qualify.
There is no compromise for the President or Vice-President; they both must have become citizens at their birth which certainly eliminates naturalized citizens. Is it not true that each and every naturalized citizen gets his citizenship by operation of a Statute passed by Congress, and cannot get his citizenship otherwise. If he got his citizenship otherwise he would not be naturalized but a citizen from birth. But birth where and to whom?
We know that the 14th amendment granting citizenship was not in effect until after the Civil War, and has two requirements. First, one must be born in the US. Secondly, one must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the US. These are separate requirements, and not redundant.
Born in the US seems to be a simple requirement.
“Born subject to the jurisdiction” of the US is more complex. Here is what the Framers of the 14th amendment said it meant:
Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally presents a problem for the court majority by declaring: “The provision is, that “Ëœall persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by “Ëœcomplete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard followed that up by stating that: “The word “Ëœjurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”Â
And,
Well the first major hurdle Senator Howard presented to the court majority in this case is that he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law” which only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment: “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”Â
And,
The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..
It seems clear from these quotes by the principal framers of the 14th amendment that if one is born with foreign citizenship, he does not qualify for citizenship under the 14th amendment.
So if you are born outside the US you do not get citizenship from the 14th amendment, and if you are born with foreign citizenship you do not get citizenship from the 14th amendment. You are not a natural citizen if you do not qualify for citizenship under the 14th amendment.
So we could stop here and see that McCain did not get citizenship from the 14th amendment because he was born in Panama. We could stop here and see that Obama did not get citizenship from the 14th amendment because he was born with foreign citizenship (not fully and completely under the jurisdiction of the US).
Natural citizenship is a result of both being born in the US and being born without any foreign citizenship.
The highest test of allegiance is what was intended for the President and Vice-President; higher than being a citizen for a minimum number of years; a citizen from birth, born with no allegiances to a foreign power. So natural born really combines two tests, place of birth and parentage at birth, and requires purity of the President and Vice-President.
Quotes are derived from this article, which I recommend everyone interested in this issue read:
http://www.therant.us/guest/gioia/09222007.htm
Based on the rationale for the “natural born citizen” provision-“â€ensuring against foreign allegiance, etc.-“â€here’s what would have made sense to the framers at the time:
(1) Natural born citizen = a citizen literally “born American” (as opposed to merely born IN America). This means citizenship determined by descent-“â€i.e., by operation of nature (or “natural law”Â). At that time, this most likely meant descent from the father. I don’t think we have had a president whose parents were not both Americans at the time of his birth. Obama’s named father clearly was not an American.
(2) Citizenship at birth = those who, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, are Americans at birth because a law/the Sovereign deems them so-“â€i.e., by operation of law. When citizenship is attained by birth (by nature), no law, at all, was required to make them citizens. When citizenship is attained at birth, a law was required. The sovereign somehow had to recognize those children of aliens as citizens. These Americans AT birth would not have the same status as Americans BY birth, in this one respect: eligibility to be President. (But their next generation could be eligible by birth.)
(3) Naturalized citizens = those who were not Americans BY birth or AT birth, but obtain citizenship later by fulfilling a legal requirement and doing a substantive legal act to obtain citizenship. This would be citizenship by operation of law and volition.
In short:
Ҡa natural born citizen would be one who, by operation of nature (descent) was born American, regardless of birthplace;
“†a citizen would be one who, by operation of positive law, was deemed an American at birth, regardless of parents’ citizenship; and
Ҡa naturalized citizen was one who, by operation of positive law and volition, becomes an American some time subsequent to birth.
Since much of the caselaw on citizenship addresses only citizenship, and therefore could be limited to citizenship by operation of positive law (i.e., AT birth as opposed to BY birth), much of that precedent may not be helpful in determining eligibility to serve as President.
OTOH, if natural born citizenship status is as simple as having two parents who were Americans by the time of one’s birth, or”â€depending on the law at the time-“â€a father who was American by the time of one’s birth, that’s a straightforward standard that would greatly limit the possible factual permutations that could be presented.
In Reply to Sid Davis: There was a case about 3 years ago that involved a woman who was going to be deported. She was married to an American in Kansas. She was also pregnant. She appealed her deportation in federal court but lost and is now living in Mexico. However, Judge Wright told the Justice Department that her unborn child was, in his opinion, a citizen.
This was an extraordinary statement by Wright and it appears to me to be contradictory to the Constitutution that you must be “born”.
I just thought I would throw this out for consideration.
In Reply to Joss: You asked about the effect of being born to a British subject.
In browsing through a book called Unnaturally French: Foreign Citizens in the Old Regime and After, which discusses French citizenship in the late 18th century (when our Constitution was signed), there is a notion that the sovereign recognized those being born in the kingdom (of France) as citizens of France.
However, on page 130, the book discusses that at this time (during which the framers would have been aware of the law) the English also recognized children born in their empire as British subjects and, moreover, “in England, allegiance was ‘natural’ and ‘perpetual,’ received at birth and impossible to shed . . ..”
How the French resolved this if a child of French citizens were born in England, or a child of a French and an English parent were born in France, I don’t know.
On this side of the Atlantic, the framers certainly would not have approved of an English man’s son, who received English citizenship at birth (with its “natural,” “perpetual,” and “impossible to shed” allegiance to the Crown), becoming the President and Commander in Chief of the U.S.
That said, whether the language they used in the Constitution left room for future generations to determine the effect of some or all dual citizenships on the special and limited point of eligibility to serve as President and Commander in Chief is unknown or at least not highlighted in SCOTUS jurisprudence.
In Reply to Publius:
If “natural born citizen” status is, in fact (i.e., as settled by the SCOTUS), determined by the citizenship of one’s father, it is clear that Obama’s father (assuming he continues to claim his father was Barack Obama I) was not an American citizen. Case closed.
If “natural born citizen” status could also be attained by descent from his mother’s citizenship, it is (so far) clear that his mother was an American. Case closed.
This is one of the beauties of recognizing the simplicity of the “natural born” concept as being determined by descent alone. Sure, there could still be factual issues as to one’s parents’ citizenships, but the inquiry would be relatively straightforward and the controversy easy to prove or disprove.
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
If, in fact, “natural born citizen” status is attained by birth to an American father, both Buchanan and Arthur were “natural born citizens” because their fathers (so far as known now) were (naturalized) Americans at the time their future-president sons were born.
In effect, this sensible and historically accurate reading of “natural born citizen” requires a president to be at least a second-generation American.
In Reply to Sid Davis:
It appears to me that the practical effect the framers may have intended was to limit the presidency to those who were at least second-generation Americans.
Basing eligibility on attaining citizenship by birth (i.e., by operation of “nature” alone), as opposed to at birth based on birthplace (i.e., by operation of law / the sovereign’s recognition of the children of aliens as citizens), ensured so far as possible that the individual was at least “once removed” from ties to the old country.
And, of course, there is practical wisdom in that. As we see even today, hundreds of years later, the second-generation Americans usually do not have anywhere near the ties to the old country that first-generation Americans often do.
Therefore, to say natural born status is determined by both descent and birthplace, seems to me to wrongly conflate citizenship attained by nature (descent) with citizenship attained by law (the legal import of one’s birthplace) .
Place of birth determines citizenship only because positive law says it does. The sovereign, whether a king or a state, could have made a different decision. This demonstrates this is citizenship attained by operation of law.
Once “law,” yes, it will be enforced and elaborated upon by the courts and even come to be viewed as a “right.” That, however, does not change the fact that, in the first instance, the sovereign had the authority to deny citizenship to the children of aliens born in its jurisdiction.
Moreover, there is only one aspect in which the effect of natural born citizenship (by descent) status diverges from citizenship attained at birth, but without descent (by law): that is the very unusual, specific and important requirement regarding eligibility to serve as President and Commander in Chief.
IOW, there are no differences between citizenship attained by descent at birth and citizenship attained by law at birth EXCEPT (assuming the correctness of our working definition) that the former individual is eligible to be president and the latter is not.
Again, this construction would make perfect sense as it would limit the presidency to those who are at least second-generation Americans. That doesn’t seem too much ask, either from the framers’ point of view or ours today. Which, of course, matters not a whit anyway. No matter the burden the standard may impose, generally or in a particular case, the Constitution still must be vouchsafed.
In Reply to Joss:
You said:
Hear, hear! This country has shown historical greatness by electing the first black president, overcoming the burden of slavery and segregation, and if the SCOTUS rules Obama eligible for sound reasons, that’s absolutely fine. And if for other sound reasons he’s ruled ineligible, the country will have shown the same amount of greatness in other ways, by preserving and honoring the Constitution, and not falling for a mere “political reality”Â. It would be a bittersweet victory, but I’d rather have a passing tragedy of millions than once again “cabal, intrigue, and corruption” (Alexander Hamilton). So I hope that the SCOTUS will accept the case.
///end quote ///
Amen to every word you said, except that it “would be a bittersweet victory.” From my point of view, regardless of outcome, the fact that our system worked to address this issue would be very great indeed. And, if by some chance, Obama were found ineligible, I have every confidence that our procedures to transfer power peacefully would work and we would get through.
That said, it’s not at all clear that any replacement for Obama, should he be found ineligible, would constitute a “victory” for the nation of any sort. Still, that is irrelevant to the task of vouchsafeing the constitutional requirements for the presidency, for now and the future.
Please read in this article what the Framers of the 14th amendment said about “subject to the jurisdiction” meant.
http://www.therant.us/guest/gioia/09222007.htm
The language “subject to the jurisdiction” means “not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power”. Obama was born subject to foreign jurisdiction. The Framers said this was completely “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, so being born with dual citizenship makes you not completely “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” thus you fail the “AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause.
Obama, at his birth was not subject to the jurisdiction of the US so he did not meet both test (born or naturalized AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof). But he was born a citizen. This citizenship was as a result of Congressional Statutes effective at the time of his birth which takes away the possibility of having natural citizenship. He did not get his citizenship by operation of the 14th amendment.
McCain was not born in the US or naturalized in the US. I don’t know the laws of Panama, but if they said someone born in Panama to two US citizens is also a citizen of Panama, then he failed the “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” test. If Panama did not claim him he passed the “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” test. So being born out of the US prevented him from having natural citizenship. He also got his citizenship from operation of Congressional statutes in effect at the time of his birth.
Neither McCain nor Obama needed to be naturalized because they were born with US citizenship, not gotten from the 14th amendment, but from Congressional Statutes. If you need to be naturalized, it is because you were not born with citizenship, so neither McCain nor Obama needed to be naturalized.
It is clear you can get citizenship from operation of Congressional Statutes, or being naturalized, or by operation of the 14th amendment applied at birth.
If your citizenship came from Congressional Statutes then it was not natural citizenship. If your citizenship came from naturalization it is because you did not have it a birth. So the “natural” part of “natural born” is not a characteristic of someone getting his citizenship from Congressional Statutes, and the “born” part of “natural born” is not a characteristic of someone getting his citizenship from naturalization.
So at a minimum to be a “natural born” citizen, you would need to have gotten your citizen by operation of the 14th amendment, meeting the “born in the US” part and meeting the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part.
If the laws of Great Britain at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961 had not made him subject to their jurisdiction, then Obama would have met the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” test of the 14th amendment and would have gotten citizenship from the 14th amendment (I think). However would that have made him a “natural born citizen”?
This is where this article by P.A. Madison is valuable. One would then need to transport himself back in time before the 14th amendment to see what purpose the Framers of Article II, Section 1 had. They wanted to keep the President from having any allegiances to foreign powers. In those times, they viewed the citizenship of one’s father as controlling, so I suspect that there is an even more stringent test than the 14th amendment to be applied to Article II, Section 1 and that test is being born in the US to citizen parents, or at least to a citizen father.
This is a very well thought out argument except for a couple of points. The argument says you must be a citizen by nature and not by law, hence, none of the founders were eligible for the presidency. One can say that laws were passed specifically giving exception to those living in the United States at it’s inception. But that is citizenship by law, not nature and it quite naturally contradicts the authors whole argument.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a citizen by nature. Citizenship is not a biological function whereas birth is a natural biological function. It takes a law to say you are a citizen of the country of your biological father. If it were natural, why not the mother? It is simply obfuscation to say that citizenship has anything to do with nature. Citizenship is purely a structure created by law.
This post has turned out to be an excellent backgrounder for preparing my amicus. You are thoroughly good, P. Madison.
Too much confusions and obsfucations of the Constitution.
When I remove the “blatant political leanings” of some of the posts here, beneath their various logical-theories lie unforunded legal-precedents or logic.
SCOTUS is the only recognized and supreme custodian of the constitution and its word is FINAL.
The mere fact the SCOTUS denied to HEAR/REVIEW Leo’s anc Cort’s cases is enough to assume they had no constiutional impact nor legal standing.
Sad, but true.
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
When did you hear this “fact” that “the SCOTUS denied to HEAR/REVIEW Leo’s anc Cort’s cases”?
“blatant political leanings” of some of the posts here????
In Reply to Mr James: Maybe God is saving us from stupidity. If we truely trust that God is really in control and trust in God as our source, we will come out ok. A house divided does not work very well. God Loves not matter what your citizenship. We must pray for who ever is holding the office of the President. If we don’t then we have failed. Like Israel we wanted to be able to choose. The majority has spoken so lets not be discouraged. I ask God to touch and guide the heart of our next President. May God bless you.
In Reply to Marion:
Please look at Deuteronomy 17:14-20
In Deuteronomy 17:15 the LORD says through Moses: “you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD chooses, one from among your own countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.” NAS
So, the LORD was very specific as to leadership requirements concerning Israel. He said this because of the problem of divided loyalties to protect Israel from foreign encroachment. A foreigner would not understand God’s laws, commandments, and statutes.
In similar fashion the Framers of the Constitution gave us three requirements to hold the Office of President, among them the natural born citizen clause. A Vice President must meet those same requirements.
In Reply to Marion:
No, Marion. If trust in your god doesn’t forestall an illegitimate ruler, it’s your trust that’s been wrong, not your god. Since you mention “Israel”, you seem to be an Old-Testamentarian addict, and I would like to direct you to the pugnator of Exodus 15:3. There”â€and in many other places as well”â€the Jewish god has been a combatant, and I see no reason, why disciples like you should refrain from taking up arms against “tyrants”, i.e. illegitimate rulers.
In Reply to Hugh:
You know, that’s why I adore the Romans. They had a long and powerful Republic. And later they had Celts, Germans, Goths, Thracians, Africans and Arabs as their emperors. And if necessary, they burned their old books of law and simply wrote new ones. That’s why they were so successful and influential, for over 1000 years. They saw the necessity to renew their society. They surely kept all the old stuff, but constantly redefined it. And they also acquired new ideas constantly. That’s the main reason for their success. And that’s also why Israel lost against them”¦ that’s why every nationalist culture keen on preserving its ancient past at any cost will eventually fail.
Barack Obama’s election is inevitable, because the US seems to still have an urge to survive. Still. I totally agree that his Presidency would be unconstitutional, but in terms of global power and influence”â€and (as a consequence) of domestic well-being”â€breaking the Constitution and thereby redefining and modernizing it with a fait accompli, supported by the SCOTUS, will be the Union’s last best hope.
This has been my basic argument for years: Do the United States want to be an empire? Or only a large nation that will eventually disappear like the ancient Greeks? Maybe the English language will survive, like the Greek language survived as the Eastern lingua franca of the Roman Empire. But today, the Greek language is only spoken in Greece, while Latin, the language of the common people, has flourished around the world, as Spanish, Italian, and as an integral part of all modern Western languages.
Obama is a pivotal point in history. He CAN BE a new founding father of a new global US era. So we see before us two roads, one leading into this new era, the other into inevitable oblivion, inhabited by an anachronistic nation reduced to nothing but a faint memory of past glory.
In Reply to Joss:
To boil this down to one question for the future of the US:
HELLAS or ROMA?
In Reply to Joss:
Are you aware that one of the causes of the War of 1812 was the British not honoring American citizenship certificates, thereby seizing 6,000 American citizens for their navy? The Americans took it as challenge to natural born citizens, it appears! We fought because we had to, not as the violent aggressor.
This war and its causes gives us great insight into the collective mind of the Framers as to what they would allow and disallow after obtaining freedom as natural born citizens. They were willing to fight! No doubt Americans counted it an honor to be a natural born citizen.
So, we have the Framers protecting us from a foreign born president (no allegiances to foreign soil). Also, foreigners could not lay illegitimate claim to our President or any American citizen without retaliation. It was not a matter of being cruel or mean, but of protecting and defending our boundaries and property rights.
Lkewise the LORD, in Old Testament and New, will fight evil!
No idea how the framers viewed natural born citizen, but the assembly of Maryland felt a natural born subject was children born to fathers whose allegiance belonged to the state of Maryland.
In Reply to Sid Davis:
McCain did not fail the “subject to the jurisdiction of the US” mantra. His father was a subject of the US and the US had full established jurisdiction over him no matter where (any US consul would intervene on his behalf).
McCain is a natural born citizen because the US had full established jurisdiction over his father and mother. McCain needs no law defining who he is, he is defined by his father, a US citizen.
I have enjoyed your posts very much up to this point, but your argument here seems questionable to me. It”s either Obama or Oblivion, are you saying? It’s possibly neither, with or without Obama. We could be seen as just an ex-British colony that got too big for its dungarees in the measly 200 years we’ve been around.
By the way, English is not ours to export except second hand, as it obviously came from the English. And the Roman Empire divided and fell because it also got too big and culturally too diluted. So where does ‘big’ end and an ’empire’ begin. Also, the reason that Latin (and Greek too by the way) spread the way it did, is because of its culturation via the Church of Rome. So where Rome went and the Church didn’t, you will not find Latin’s influence, or not greatly so.
But how you tie any of this to Obama escapes me. It’s as if you have simply bought the ‘change’ thing, and you’re intellectualizing it to death. Hope is suppose to be a virtue, but it can also be a real bitch.
Who knows, it would be great if you’re right. But even though great men have been known to be deceitful, it isn’t the sum total of what they are about. And truly we do not know anything else about this possible usurper. I don’t like giving second hand comments, but a friend who is a Psychologist, says he’s a classic schizoid. The point is, it is just as likely as anything else at this point.
I’m not trying to make some substantive comparison here, but it’s worth remembering that Churchill in the mid-1930s thought Hitler was the greatest thing since the invention of crumpets. And he had equal admiration for Stalin at one point. We live in much more deceitful times, and we are just as easily beguiled.
In Reply to Joss:
My post below was suppose to be a reply to you
In Reply to JoeE: We have to hope for the best. There are about 30 more cases on the way. Many more kept quite because of death threats. I would not be suprised to learn all together 80- 100 cases filed or in the process. I can only speak for me, but there will be some praying here.
Bottom line……….If you voted for Obama because he is black….you are a racicst…..if you didn`t vote for Obama because he is black….you are a racicst…….judge by character not color…..If his father who was not only a citizen of another country and pledged his allegence to that other country…. is the reason for the refusal of the birth certificate submission???(NOT the certificate of live birth!)Did his mother also renounce her citizenship being at the time she was not a big fan of the Constitution????We as a country owe it to the people who have fought and died to protect the Constitution to confirm this fact. Are we in such a hurry to “make history” instead of thinking this through? Isn`t that how the banking systems got our hard earned $$$ without restrictions and the auto industy wants the same? Some one stop the insanity!!!!! God help us and God Bless the USA!!!
I’ve discussed this article a lot in other forums, and continually come up against several entrenched, but purely popular notions as to the meaning of “natural born.”
Here’s a way to state the fundamental argument that may be less confusing to people conflating “natural born” status with “citizenship at birth” status:
There are two types of citizenship status:
(1) Natural born citizenship. This status is attained upon birth by operation of nature (that is, by descent). No law has ever been required to deem the child of two Americans an American citizen, regardless of place of birth.
(That said, it is still arguably an open question whether descent was required from one’s father, or from one’s father or mother, or from both parents.)
(2) Naturalized citizenship. There are two types (subsets) of naturalized citizenship:
(a) Automatic naturalization at birth. This status is attained upon birth by operation of law. The children of aliens born within a country / kingdom were deemed citizens of that place solely because the sovereign chose to accord them citizenship. Sovereigns could have made a different choice, therefore proving that this status comes only through law, not through nature.
(b) Voluntary naturalization some time after birth. This status is attained later in life by operation of law and volition. As such, it also is not a status that occurs by nature.
While “natural” citizenship status and “automatic naturalization” status are both attained upon birth, they are not the same and should not be confused.
That said, there is only one difference between the “natural” status and the “automatic naturalization” status: that is, that only the former makes one eligible to serve as President.
The framers’ goal was to limit the presidency, and particularly the office of Commander in Chief, essentially to those who were at least second-generation Americans. A child who is automatically naturalized at birth—i.e., who is an American because American law says he is, not because his parents were Americans—is a first-generation American. That was too close to the old country for the framers.
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
Have you also read the reply?
http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=129849&bheaders=1#129849
In Reply to TJ:
Orphans and citizenship by adoption is interesting since BO was adopted and achieved Indonesian citizenship.
How does that compare with “jurisdiction” questions, especially since he traveled to Pakistan under an Indonesian passport as an adult while Americans were barred from traveling there?
In Reply to Mr Paul:
For someone who supposedly knows the law and writes regularly on the Supreme Court, it’s amazing that he makes the ludicrous mistake in para 3:2 in the article you refer to. The rest is a generalization of the practice of the court. This isn’t a “good” summary of the cases at all!
How about waiting approximately 8 hours?
This is my first time posting here and it appears some of the Moonbats (also known as “libtards”) are hard at work trying to derail a brilliant and intellectually challenging thread–intellectually challenging FOR THEM, I
mean!–with their radical “noise”.
Publius gave a wonderful explanation of the differences between “natural born” and “naturalized”. Joss also cites an excellent piece by Hank Rand.
Some of the posts I’ve read on other blogs are from former Obama supporters who have “seen the light” thru their postings and discussions at varieous sites. Of course, these posters have to be taken at their word that they are in fact upholders of the Constitution no matter how such support affects the outcome of the Election next week.
No one except perhaps the Gov. of Hawaii and Obama know the contents of the vault document supposedly there. The election of the most powerful man in the world cannot, in my opinion, rest on “the possibility of that document being released”. And that is another reason why the Donofrio Case is so important. Not only did it come up thru the state court system–it DEFINES Obama’s ineligibility POINT BLANK without all the Moonbat obfuscation about the b/c.
Even if Donofrio wins his case at SCOTUS, I think a lot of American citizens would like to see Obama’s Kenyan grandmother deposed as well as the Ambassador to the U.S. from Kenya and any others (a half-sister?) who know for a fact that Obama was born in Kenya. With Donofrio’s win and the election overturned, a lot of Americans are going to want Obama tried for treason or at the very least, for fraud. There won’t be a rock under which he can crawl under to hide here in the U.S. should he be declared “a fraud and a charlatan” by SCOTUS. He will be forced to leave the country…perhaps back to his native Kenya?
One must remember That John McCain is a natural born citizen simply because:
a) His mother and father were both Natural born citizens
the US
b) His father was a commissioned officer in the US Navy
sworn to protect the constitution from all enemies
foreign and domestic and was absolutely subject to the
jurisdiction there of.
c) further, his “Natural Father’s presence outside the US
was pursuant a direct order from the US Commander in
Chief
d) The Naval hospital in which he was born flew a
Quartered Flag (gold braid surrounding all four sides)
which in fact made it Sovereign Property of the US.
One must remember That John McCain is a natural born citizen simply because:
a) His mother and father were both Natural born citizens
the US
b) His father was a commissioned officer in the US Navy
sworn to protect the constitution from all enemies
foreign and domestic and was absolutely subject to the
jurisdiction there of.
c) further, his “Natural Father’s presence outside the US
was pursuant a direct order from the US Commander in
Chief
d) The Naval hospital in which he was born flew a
Quartered Flag (gold braid surrounding all four sides)
which in fact made it Sovereign Property of the US.
For all of you in Rio Linda Please spend at least 30 minutes browsing http://www.constitution.org/ it should help alleviate some of the tantrums over the Founding Fathers Intent by getting your information straight from the horse’s mouth
On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
ҠThomas Jefferson (1743-1826), letter to Judge William Johnson, (from Monticello, June 12, 1823)
If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
ҠGeorge Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
ҠJames Madison
In Reply to fightinJAG and Sid Davis:
I agree that there is value in considering constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status to be somewhat synonymous with second generation American status.
I would also argue, however, that such a proposition does not necessarily answer the question of whether the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” as used in the original U.S. Constitution, or as considered in the wake of the adoption of the 14th amendment, ever included anyone who wasn’t born on U.S. soil. I would argue the term “natural born citizen” does not now, and never did, include any such person.
The question, it seems to me, boils down to this: who among U.S. citizens existing today can lay claim to that species of U.S. citizenship since birth, the validity of which cannot denied by operation of **any** positive law the United States (including any provisions of the Constitution, as-written or as-amended)? It is only by the use this question as a starting point, followed by a process of logical deduction, that we can determine, once and for all, that subset of current U.S. citizens, each of the constituents of which possesses constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status.
If I am correct in thinking that the U.S. has always had the power to deny citizenship to individuals born other than on U.S. soil, then the citizenship ‘fate’ of anyone born outside of the fifty United States (and, for the sake of argument at least, also outside the non-state territories falling under the control of the U.S. government) would depend on the state of U.S. law at the time of their birth. Currently (that is, as currently amended), and according to my understanding of it (if I am wrong, I would appreciate being corrected on this point), the United States Constitution only specifically guarantees citizenship to individuals who are or were born within the United States, **and** who at the time of their birth, are or were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Consider a first scenario. The U.S. Constitution remains exactly as it is today, and is unamended for all times relevant to this scenario. A U.S. statute is passed tomorrow that categorically denies citizenship to anyone who does not meet the criteria of the 14th amendment. Person A is born in 2010 in a foreign country (say, Panama) to two parents, each of whom has been a U.S. citizen since birth. Person A runs for U.S. president in 2048 and is denied access to the ballot in say, New Jersey. Person A, being a non-citizen from the get-go according to U.S. statutory law, would presumably have no legal recourse in terms of an applicable provision of the U.S. Constitution to force a different result.
Consider a second scenario separate from the first scenario. In this scenario, the U.S. Constitution is amended next year to erase all of the arguably applicable provisions of the 14th amendment. The next day, a U.S. statute is passed that denies U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil whose father is not also U.S. citizen at the time of the birth. Person B is born in 2010 in a U.S. state (say, Hawaii) to a married couple including a mother who has been a U.S. citizen since birth and a non-naturalized alien father. Person B runs for U.S. president in 2048 and is denied access to the ballot in say, New Jersey. Person B, being a non-citizen from the get-go according to U.S. statutory law, would presumably have no legal recourse in terms of an applicable provision of the U.S. Constitution to force a different result.
Finally, consider a third scenario that is separate from the first and second scenarios. According to this scenario, the U.S. Constitution is amended next year to erase all of the arguably applicable provisions of the 14th amendment, but otherwise remains the same as it appears today. The next day, a U.S. statute is passed that denies U.S. citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil whose father is not a native-born U.S. citizen. Person C is born in 2010 in a U.S. state to a married couple including a mother who has been a U.S. citizen since birth and a father who was a foreign citizen at birth, but through a process of naturalization, became a U.S. citizen before the birth of person C. Person C runs for U.S. president in 2048 and is denied access to the ballot in say, New Jersey. IMHO, person C would not need to point to any particular provision of the U.S. Constitution or of U.S. statutory law to prove his or her citizenship. Rather, Person C would have recourse to natural law to force the Secretary of State of New Jersey to recognize him or her as a natural born U.S. citizen, fully eligible to run for the office of POTUS.
Please note that I am certainly not making any argument that the passage of the 14th amendment means that anyone who is born within the United States and subject to the jurisdication of the United States is necessarily a “natural born citizen”. I will leave it to others to make such an assertion and prove it in due course.
Rather, I am simply arguing that from the time of the ratification of the original U.S. constitution onward, it has only been some subset of those who were born on U.S. soil who have ever had constitutionally-valid natural born citizenship status.
THE FRINGE’s (thats what this whole movement has become) have LOST BIG!!!
Supreme Court DISMISSEs the case (without opinion).
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
What is NOt shocking to some of us is USA Supreme Court DENIES and DISMISSES the case.
Not even an opnion is given (signifying no merit, no standing and frivolous).
Ok!!! now lets hear the new SPINs and Counter-SPINs!!!
In Reply to Mr Paul:
FYI: You predicted it, you got it.
Application for Emergency Stay denied in Donfrio v. Wells.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120808zor.pdf
Publius
To pick up where I left off, since SCOTUS is (at least for the time being) uninterested in chiming in:
It might help to consider a fourth scenario, different from each of the first, second, and third I’ve mentioned.
According to this scenario, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is adopted next year that: 1) erases all of the arguably applicable provisions of the 14th amendment, and 2) adds a new provision specifically preventing anyone who cannot show that his or her father was a native-born U.S. citizen at the time of his or her birth from ascending to the office of POTUS. Person C is born in 2010 in a U.S. state to a married couple including a mother who has been a U.S. citizen since birth and a foreign-born father who immigrated to the U.S. as an adult and became a U.S. citizen by a process of naturalization before the birth of person C. Person C runs for U.S. president in 2048 and is denied access to the ballot in say, New Jersey. Even though person C is clearly a natural born citizen, and would have no trouble demonstrating the same to a court of competent jurisdication, he or she would not be eligible for the office of POTUS due to the new constitutional provision.
The point is, we should not be attempting to go through an elaborate set of hoops to arrive at a definition of “natural born citizen” that either covers or does not cover any particular individual or category of individuals. Rather, we should recognize the immutable clarity of the term as used in the original Constitution and deal with the result this gives. If the result is generally acceptable to the country, so be it. If not, I would expect that many would begin advocating for the adoption of a corresponding amendment.
But to avoid answering any and all questions like these in the first place is certainly no way to run an airline. Neither should otherwise respectable legal minds be heard to argue that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that can legitimately be said to mean whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices wish it to mean at a given moment in time. IMHO, far from punting, the Supreme Court has taken a knee–and on the judicial equivalent of second or third down!
In Reply to Dennis222:
Yes this is my point too. But it is about U.S. law and due process. You would have to consider how you wanted to treat orphans under a three-tiered citizenship system. As for Indonesia, the State Dept. clearly states that a U.S. citizen does not give up their citizenship just because a foreign state confers citizenship by marriage or birth upon them. Imagine if parents were the ones who decided arbitrarily what citizenship you held and changed it on a whim. You could effectively be left with no citizenship anywhere. That is chaos and parental tyranny.
As for providing a birth certificate. None of the certificate deniers have said affirmatively whether or not the document provided by the Obama campaign would be good enough to obtain a U.S. passport. (I am guessing it is because he already has one). If it is enough to prove non-naturalized citizenship, then the burden proof would be on a petitioner or prove this is some how false information or somehow an inadequate proof of citizenship. State officials say they have seen his birth certificate also before you argue that doesn’t affirm what he has presented as true. If the information presented and widely know was different from what the officials saw then they would be taking part in an act of fraud. So since they did not deny he was born anywhere BUT Hawaii we can assume that is what they meant. So if you say it is people saying something over in Kenya, just imagine someone’s word up against a certified state document. So basically the document provided is likely enough the prove non-naturalized citizenship in every other case so why would a court make the state do something extra special in this case. You as the petitioner would likely have to show that somehow that document provided by the state of Hawaii is inadequate to prove citizenship which you can’t really do if the U.S. State Dept. is accepting such proof. So you would then be forced to sue the State Dept. on the grounds that they accept inadequate proof of citizenship since it doesn’t say on the state certified document which hospital a person was born at or whatever….Now it is 2020 and Obama has his own library…oy.
In Reply to Mr Paul:
I wouldn’t crow too loudly if I were you. Why didn’t they dismiss: Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State? This may be the dregs of hope, but it WAS on Scalia’s desk, it Was, according to Donofrio, better written, and it IS still alive.
In Reply to levotb: You seem to be convinced that Obama is not an American Citizen and in fact was born in Kenya. Even Mr. Donofrio’s concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii. His main objection is that Obama’s parents where not both Natutal Born Citizens. The consistution states that only one needs to be “Natural Born”. So if the facts are that Obama was born in Hawaii and his mother was Natural Born, then he is indeed a Natural Born Citizen. Those are facts and are documented. If you have facts to counter this argument then bring them forward. Mearly repeating what you hear with noting to validate it does not make your case. You must provide proof. The best way to answer this question is to present hard evidence. Without evidence there is no case to be made. It would be like a lawyer defending his client with nothing more then his own thoughts of what the truth is. I am sure that we all have larger problems in our own personal lives to deal with then to worry about Mr. Obamas citizenship. If something does surface then we always have impeachment to consider.
Ummmm – Wrotonowski’s case has been referred to the Court by Scalia, and there will be a conference on December 12th.
As I read these blogs I have one question, what is it that you all want? It is clear that Obama is not your candidate and I am sure that you do not consider him your President. Is this simply a last ditch attempt to overturn the election? For the last two and a half years while Obama has been running for and finally elected President, no one has ever found any evidence to back your assumptions. If the evidence was there don’t you think it would have been presented by now? Why was a non citizen allowed to be elected President, because he is indeed a citizen? None of your comments offer any real proof and absent of proof you have no case. Stop wasting your time, go out find the proof and then present your case.
To all:
Why would Scalia refer to the Court a case that in its main particulars are identical to Donofrio’s (but apparently better written and without some lower court garbage) when Donofrio’s has been dismissed? In fact, a letter written to the court by Donofrio detailed an attempt by the lower court judge to ‘taint’ the case in some way.
The convention is that a Justice will not send a case to conference if he or she does not believe that at least 4 Justices will want to review it. This is more positive than it was before. Work out the logic!!!!
I certainly would not put on black arm-bands or open up bottles of bubbly yet (well, maybe the latter – just because).
The Supreme Court today decided not to hear the case brought by Mr. Donofrio. I would say this issue for now is dead.