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 ddriza:
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”. 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.
In Reply to Joe Blog:
Let’s wait and see. Berg’s case is a different cup of tea.
I’ve seen early 18th century Certificates of Birth granted by various town clerks that required the parents to certify their citizenship. Presumably this would determine whether their children where natural born citizens of the state.
In Reply to Sid Davis:
You are right to doubt the quality of the example of Chester A. Arthur as binding legal precedent in this case. At best, his example can be used as part of a public policy argument provided to SCOTUS for their consideration as they decide how to rule. And it’s not clear to me that Barack Obama will fare well by comparison to Chester A. Arthur.
As we know, Mr. Donofrio’s proposed rule is that nobody who is born with dual citizenship can ever be a constitutionally-valid natural born citizen. As shown in my posts below, I am proposing a more refined rule that recognizes those who are born with dual citizenship as natural born citizens, but that also strips such status from the same people should they take advantage of the advantages, privileges, or protection afforded by their foreign citizenship in any real way once they are adults.
Viewed in this way, and assuming he in fact held dual citizenship in the U.S. and Great Britain at birth (would like to see the facts/law on this), Chester A. Arthur’s example may be the one that proves my rule. For example, we may learn, upon further research of his adult life, that Chester A. Arthur was never known by anyone to take even a first baby step in the direction of taking advantage of his foreign citizenship. Rather, based on the little I know of his life so far, it appears as if Chester A. Arthur was a model citizen and patriot for whom the notion of citizenship in any country other than the United States was just that: an abstract notion with no basis in his reality. In other words, likely as not, this was a man with great integrity and appreciation for the country of his birth and childhood, and who as an adult was not particularly interested in trying any other country’s citizenship on for size.
To my mind, the important question now is not whether the supposed fact of Chester A. Arthur’s dual citizenship at birth and presumed status as a natural born citizen paves the way for Barack Obama to assume the office of POTUS to which he has been elected. Rather, we should be seeking to determine whether Barack Obama’s conduct as an adult reflects a similar lack of interest as shown by Chester A. Arthur in the privileges, advantages, and protections potentially available to him as a citizen of a foreign power.
In Reply to Publius:
As a further matter of interest, I saw presented on another site the information that in fact Chester Arthur’s parents came from Ireland and were in all probability were naturalized by the time of his birth nine years later. So there is some factual question here, not that it should matter.
All that matters is whether or not the Justices read the Constitution, understand what was intended WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, and correctly apply that to Obama and McCain. Of course they must first decide it this issue is important enough for them to take the time to decide the case or cases that they are being asked to accept for review. Seems to me that this is a matter of great importance, but we all know that Souter and Ginsberg have already shown how unimportant the issue is.
From what I understand 4 Justices actually value the Constitution, and the others are more in the make it up as you go category, so any decision I would expect to be close.
In Reply to Publius:
Good questions. Especially on the adult issue.
Here is what we know:
(a) Much earlier before Chester Arthur became president, and from an early age to his mid-life ages, he used to be a visitor almost every other month (and long holidays) to his grandfathers home town in Canada and once in a while made the trip across the pond. He kept in touch with his relatives in Canada and Ireland and when some of them came over as immigrants, he was a point of call and reflection adn advice. Despite this all, Chester (recognized by Canada-under UK jurisidiction – as a dual citizen of USA-primary and Canada-secondary), never forfeited his USA citizenship.
(b) Obama met his ABSENTEE father (more like a sperm donor) only twice in his life. Raised by a single mother in a college dorm and then by his grandparents, relocated with his mother to Indonesia and mentored by a step father, then relocated back to USA to be raised solely by his grandparents (white americans by birth and heritage). From his mature age, its on record that Obama never renounced his USA citizenship and kept it. Its on record that Kenya never recognized him as a citizen since 1963 (kenya laws forbid dual citizenship) which implies that his possible-UK citizenship expired in 1963 when Colonial Britain left Kenya. Obama’s first trip to UK and then Kenya was when he was a college graduate and in the middle of his relocation to Chicago. Its also on record (church records at Trinity) that Obama spent 20-years in Chicago and considered that his home and kept his roots.
Unlike Arthur, Obama’s father was never in his life and not influential.
Unlike Arthur, Obama’s father divorced his mother and moved on to re-marry. Ditto Obama’s mother.
Like Arthur, Obama considered USA as his home and has spent most of his entire adult life in the USA.
Like Arthur, Obama has over 16 years of public service (director for community services for 6 years, state senator for 10 years, us senate for 4 years).
Like Arthur, Obama spent more than 16 (of his 20 years of schooling) in the USA and graduated from Ivy League schools.
Like Arthur, Obama got elected to the USA presidency DESPITE persistent challenges and rumors of his “foreigness”.
Like Obama, Arthur was born to an immigrant father (tracing his grandfathers citizenship to British-Canada).
And like Arthur, the current fucus on a “BC” will soon die away once the Electoral College meets on Dec-15.
In Reply to Publius:
Yes, Arthur’s case would be inadmissable as legal precedent. But nevertheless it’s very important. It doesn’t really matter if President Arthur had been a “natural born citizen” or not, both of which is feasible. But his case (like Obama’s) tells us one thing: that the system is not perfect and that therefore every election and every candidate needs to be closely guarded and verified. So it’s the d@mn duty of the SCOTUS to allow the case, schedule a hearing and show the country that there are actually still people around, who are concerned with the Constitution’s perpetuation.
But Arthur’s case also shows that a President with the odium of illegitimacy need not be the dictator that many are fearing this time around. I’m pretty sure that if they had found proof of Arthur’s purported ineligible, they would’ve taken away his presidency. That could happen to Obama, of course.
Obama Will Be The Third U.S. President Born With Dual Nationality
(a) The first was James Buchanan. His father (James Buchanan) was a citizen of Ireland who immigrated to the United States and was naturalized. Ireland at the time was part of the British Empire. Under the force of nemo potest exuere patriam. Buchanan remained a British subject his entire life under British law and bestowed this status to his son at his son’s birth. This is not dissimilar to Barack Obama’s status as a British subject at his own birth. Buchanan would have been a British subject his entire life under British law.
http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/ppet/buchanan/page1.asp?secid=31
(b) The second was Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur, like Buchanan, was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur). Like James Buchanan’s father, Arthur’s was also naturalized. AS was the case with Buchanan, Arthur was also a British subject under British law. Unlike Buchanan, Arthur’s British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the Naturalization Act, 33 &34 Vict. c. 14 in 1870 (at age 41).
Arthur is an interesting case because when claims to his dual nationality as a smear did not work out, a new smear that he was born in Canada as opposed to Vermont was contrived. This makes Obama the second U.S. president to have unfounded smears of birth in a foreign nation presented as a reason for his ineligibility to be president.
Interesting how things work out, isn’t it?
Oddly enough, it was Democrats and disaffected Republicans who smeared Arthur (a Republican) in the late 19th century.
Politics and political smears have come full circle.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1163-Atlanta-Public-Policy-Examiner~topic35809-Chester-Arthur
Showing entries for Category: Chester-Arthur
First generation presidents not always on history’s side
1 comment November 10, 11:00 PM
by Perry B. Goodfriend, Atlanta Public Policy Examiner
It is no secret that President-elect Obama had a Kenyan father. (In case you missed it, there was lots of coverage of Kenya’s reaction to the candidate’s victory on November 4, including some celebration by his grandmother.) But he is not the first president of our country to have at least one foreign born parent.
Corbis Mr. Obama will be the seventh man sworn in as President of the United States who has a parent born outside our borders. The other six are:
Thomas Jefferson (English mother)
Andrew Jackson (Scots-Irish parents emigrated from Northern Ireland);
James Buchanan (Irish father)
Chester Arthur (Irish father)
Woodrow Wilson (Scottish mother);
and Herbert Hoover (English-Irish mother).
Of those, only Andrew Jackson’s parents were both not born American.
So if I understand correctly, it this caveat in U.S. constitutional law is to be believed, there are actually three tiers of citizenship, not two?
Naturalized citizens, those born outside the United States.
Natural born citizens, those born in the U.S. whose parents are citizens of the U.S.
And citizens with at least one non-citizen parent, who are then neither natural born or naturalized (as classically defined)?
So all future presidents would be forced to prove both his or her parents where citizens. Seems like a reversal of practice.
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
The two examples are important. The question that arises from them, is the following:
IS BRITISH CITIZENSHIP EQUAL TO SUBJECTION UNDER AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE BRITISH CROWN?
To elaborte further: With the process of naturalization, any foreign citizenship is discarded, which is different in the case of Obama’s father, who was never naturalized.
The question however is, if the subjection under the British crown is automatically discarded in tandem with the citizenship. This is a question I had posted earlier (either here or at another blog).
Is the status of “natural born subject” under the British Crown something in perpetuity, no matter what happens with the subject’s citizenship? I faintly remember reading sources, which actually said that a British citizen’s allegiance to the monarch is similar to the concept of divine allegiance, something that is perpetual, and in the monarchic allegiance it is also transferred onto the children along the patrilineal succession.
This would be a question to someone who knows more about British law than myself.
So we’re facing three possible scenarios concerning subjects of the British crown and US naturalization:
(a) monarchic subjection is perpetual (i.e. until a subject’s death), even if citizenship is changed; it is not equal to citizenship; therefore Arthur and Buchanan were under dual jurisdiction; this either means that they were illegitimate Presidents or that they serve as precedent for Obama, which in the latter case would mean that Obama can inaugurate in Jan 2009.
(b) monarchic subjection is perpetual (i.e. until a subject’s death), even if citizenship is changed; but due to the naturalization process, the subject’s child can not fall under the father’s jurisdiction anymore; while the father remains in allegiance to the crown, the patrilineal succession is terminated; i.e.: no precedent for Obama; Obama might not be allowed to inaugurate.
(c) monarchic subjection is not perpetual, but ends completely with naturalization of a subject together with the foreign citizenship; no precedent for Obama; Obama might not be allowed to inaugurate.
Can anyone answer this? (I can’t.)
In Reply to TJ:
Great summarization. Thats what the “BC movement” want us to to believe.
As it stand in every legal document (Constituion, Amendments and State Dept Manuals), citizenship is defined as two categories:
(a) Born of the soil (jus soilis) or Born of Heritage (jus sanguis). All considered “natural born” as in naturally born, self evident, witnessed.
(c) Not any of the above and hence NATURALIZED.
But upon discovereing the following:
– We had 7 presidents with at least one immigrant parent
– Of these 7, 3 had an immigrant father
– Of these7, 3 had an immigrant mother
– Of these 7, 1 was botn to immigrant father and mother
Its become clear this “BC and NBC” movement is confused.
In Reply to Joss:
Good call. Coz you can also say that:
his mothers divorce from his father (within a year) and his divorce from his step-father (within 3 years) innoculate him as he was a CHILD.
it all comes down to your earlier suggestion. what has been obama’s motivation since he gained 21 years.
what we know is that he never renounced US citizneship, never took on foreign ones and has lived for 22 years in Chicago.
In Reply to Mr Paul:
In Donofrio’s and many other people’s interpretation, this discussion can only be about a candidate’s status at birth, which is kinda logical, considering that the term is “natural BORN citizen”.
So it would be interesting to find out what legally happened to the fathers of all those Presidents, i.e. their father’s monarchic allegiance and subjection upon US naturalization. Did their monarchic subjection end together with their British citizenship? Did it continue? And if it continued, was future patrilineality terminated? Any experts on British “common law” here?
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
Very interesting information. Thanks for taking the time.
I’m interested to know the extent of your faith in a system in which dual citizenship at birth has no effect on one’s eligibility for the office of POTUS.
I presume you would agree that one who held U.S. citizenship and, say, U.K. citizenship since birth, maintains his or her contitutionally-valid natural born citizen status through childhood and into adulthood, later fully and completely renounces his or her U.S. citizenship (retaining his or her British citizenship), remains a resident of the U.S. (i.e., never moves to the U.K.) in order to meet the age and residency requirements, is nevertheless ineligible for the office of POTUS. That is, you can’t establish presidential eligibility based solely on the fact that you were a U.S. citizen from birth for, say, 25 years. You must actually be a U.S. citizen now.
Although it is a somewhat closer question, I presume that you will agree that if the same person discussed above thereafter renounces U.K. citizenship in favor of re-naturalization as a U.S. citizen, never having moved out of the United States, is still, and always will be ineligible for the office of POTUS. In other words, even though the person in question was born a U.S. citizen, and is a U.S. citizen now, he or she can no longer lay claim to being a constitutionally-valid natural born citizen. You must have held U.S. citizenship continuously since birth, with no non-healable breaks in your citizenship record.
Now assume that the person in question never did renounce his or her U.S. citizenship, but instead of living in the U.S. his or her whole life, was spirited away to the U.K. by his father over the objections of his U.S. citizen mother, spends his or her entire childhood there, becones an adult there, and during adulthood, is elected to parliament, eventually being named a Knight of the Realm by Queen Elizabeth II. He or she then returns to the United States for the required period of residency, and runs for president when finally eligible based on the well-known age and residency requirements, and wins by a wide margin. According to your theory, there is nothing standing between this person and the office of POTUS.
Though this latter result may have been odious in the extreme to the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and not at all what the signers and the ratifiers would ever have wanted to see happen, I nevertheless do understand that the various amendments to the U.S. Constitution have worked many changes to the meaning of the original text. For example, it may well be that at least one of these amendments, in order to be given an appropriate meaning in its own right, must be considered to have worked a change to the original meaning of the term “natural born citizen” such that that term now means something other than what it once meant.
But if we are to believe that the current meaning of the term “natural born citizen” would permit a British Knight to waltz across the pond, charm the pants off the U.S. citizenry, and snatch up our Presidency, I’m going to have to get that in writing from the pen of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Oh, and for good measure, I’d like to see it accompanied by a carefully worded and reasonably lengthy opinion, replete with a thorough and satisfying analysis based on a full set of facts. It also wouldn’t hurt to see those facts willingly coughed up by all interested parties for all to see, so that no reasonable question is left unasked or unanswered. But hey, I’m just a stick in the mud, I suppose.
In Reply to Joss:
I don’t know for sure, but my personal OPINION is that none of these former Presidents’ cases serves as a precedent for Obama.
They can only serve as a precedent, if US naturalization does not also terminate monarchical allegiance. Because if it didn’t, the allegiance, if interpreted as “divine” (i.e. “super-natural”) would logically continue patrilineally.
This interpretation and/or concept of British “common law” must by definition end upon US naturalization. Otherwise a large number of descendants of US-naturalized former British subjects would today still be subjects to the British crown, incognito (so to speak). This would mean that the US nation and many of its citizens were de facto not independent of British rule. I think that would be a totally nonsensical idea.
If this monarchic subjection is not “divine” at all, then it would logically end upon US naturalization.
So I think these Presidents cannot serve as precedent for Obama, simply because their fathers had been naturalized.
In Reply to Joss:
We are arguing over nothing.
Tell me how come Pres. Buchanan (father was British and NEVEr NAUTRALIZED) was able to be POTUS?
And what about Pres. Jackson (both parents were Immigrants from UK) and mother naturalized but father died before doing so?
Nobody is saying Legal precedence here.
This info was just to sort the chaff from the wheat.
By that i mean, make people realzie that Obama’s case is not the first, and wont be the last.
after all by 2025, 60% of american will be immigrant-1st-gen
In Reply to Mr Paul:
The link on Buchanan posted below does not say that his father was naturalized, only that he was an immigrant. Jackson’s father died before the birth, so the issue of transferring British jurisdiction onto the child never posed itself, because “natural born citizen” refers to the moment of birth, not to any other moment (including conception).
So we actually may be debating over something here. To my mind, none of these cases has any relevant connection to Obama’s situation, unless we can clearly show that a parent of a US President was NOT naturalized. (Then the SCOTUS could rule in favor of Obama.)
In Reply to Mr Paul:
The seven-presidents biography has been slow in coming and is not necessarily the easiest thing to digest at this late hour.
A “dog that didn’t bark” theory works for regulatory and statutory law, but does not suffice for purposes of an explication of constitutional law, particularly in a case of first impression.
I can’t imagine that this issue will be snuffed out with anything short of a full and complete decision on the merits that leaves no doubt as to the current meaning of the term “natural born citizen”. I don’t care how many presidents have passed in and out of the white house, or whose credentials may have seemed questionable in the past.
The time is now to explain to the American people the true nature of the country we are living in as of this particular moment. Once we know our present condition, we can either accept if it is to our collective liking, or take positive action to change it if it is not.
But if nobody in authority is willing to explain to us where we are today, there will be no reliable record of our current condition. In order to know how far you have gone, or in what direction you have traveled, you must know where you were, and when you were there. Otherwise, how are we as fellow Americans any different than the proverbial patch of mushrooms?
It has been nearly 220 years since we’ve been told in plain language, and from a source that is irrefutable, who is eligible to hold the office of POTUS, and who is not. The framers, signers, and ratifiers of the Constitution were clearly animated by a strong desire to cut off the possibility of foreign powers insinuating themselves into our national affairs and politics by way of the person of the President. Their means for doing so was condensed into the concise but seemingly impactful phrase “natural born citizen”.
Is it so that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born” was, simply, “native born”? If not, has the meaning of the phrase “natural born” changed over time, such that it now is synonymous with “native born”?
If “natural born citizen” now means, simply, “native born citizen”, can an individual born in Panama, on land that was only on temporary lease to the United States, and under circumstances that moved the U.S. Congress to pass a law making that individual a citizen only retroactively, lay claim to constitutionally-valid natural born citizen status? If not, I would think that there are quite a few Electoral College electors from states recently won by John McCain who will be interested to know this salient fact before they make the mistake of voting for an ineligible candidate.
In Reply to Joss:
I have been reading about the fathers of President Buchanan, Jackson and Arthur having naturalization conflicts in connection to their son’s Presidencies.
If dual citizenship was allowed against the written U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court might use that as a possible prescident then it is mandatory that Obama yield up a copy of his certified copy of his birth certificate.
If he is born in Hawaii and this loophole is upheld he would be eligible.
If he is born in Kenya, I think he fails any possible precedent loophole.
Also, errors in the past does not mean we need to repeat them. The Framers’ intent is still the Framers’ intent. I am making the assumption that the Framers did not want dual citizenships.
What do you think?
Re: Above Chaves Quote: Was Obama’s father a member of our society at birth? I beleive this is the gist behind the Fourteenth Amendment – the jurisdiction must be a political jurisdiction, i.e., member of the body politic.
In Reply to Hugh:
Your answer is my answer:
“errors in the past does not mean we need to repeat them.”
And I absolutely second Publius’ remark:
“A ‘dog that didn’t bark’ theory works for regulatory and statutory law, but does not suffice for purposes of an explication of constitutional law”
As I said below somewhere: Even if one or more former Presidents had possibly been ineligible, it’s not a precedent. It can only serve as a reminder that the Constitution needs to be served and protected.
In Reply to Hugh:
You said:
“If dual citizenship was allowed against the written U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court might use that as a possible prescident then it is mandatory that Obama yield up a copy of his certified copy of his birth certificate.”
I say:
I have made this point as well, and consider it a very important one to drive home.
Let’s assume for the moment that the Supreme Court ultimately decides to render a decision on the merits that, after over 200 years, finally provides an authoritative definition for the term “natural born citizen”. Can anybody think of a realistic scenario under which the Supreme Court will be satisfied with anything other than the most reliable documentation available to demonstrate the precise circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth?
Why should the Supreme Court be satisfied with derivative documentation, the reliability of which has already been fully discounted by Hawaiian officials charged with distinguishing native (blood) Hawaiians from other Hawaiian citizens for purposes of distributing special benefits?
Is president-elect-elect Barack Obama’s privacy really that critical to our survival as a nation that the Supreme Court should defer to his personal wishes in this regard?
Regarding Presidents James Buchanan and Chester Arthur (allegedly) having dual citizenship at birth:
Can someone link to this as fact? I’ve done a little looking around but couldn’t find anything but recent opinion.
Also, if their parents were Naturalized before they were born, would their parents still be British subjects and therefore confer such to their children (the future Presidents in question)?
Either way, can someone link to documentation stating their parents’ status with regards to Naturalization? Again, here, I can only find recent opinion and speculation.
Lastly, I would still think that since none of those issues were ever tried in a court of law (afaik), there is no legal precident to go back and say look…it happened before and the courts ‘cleared’ it…essentially. So again, just because it (may) have happened in the past, doesn’t mean it should be done again.
Would love to see some actual historical records/facts regarding that issue of Presidents Buchanan and Arthur supposedly having dual citizenship at birth.
Thanks!
In Reply to Mr Paul:
This third class as created in this interpretation is quite ambiguous. For instance, how would orphans whose parentage as citizens could not be identified be classified? Would they be conferred rights as full natural born citizens if adopted by citizens or would they be automatically excluded from being president? How would that work given the nature of the anonymity of adoptions, even if you knew that one parent was not a citizen? If you confer rights based on the adoptive parents that would create yet another class of people who be treated differently for citizenship purposes which could get you into issues of due process.
In Reply to TJ:
In Reply to Mr Paul:
Agreed. This third tier as defined here also departs from what most Americans believe, especially immigrants Americans. Basically this is a reinterpretation of who can be president to crowd out children of immigrants while rolling up people with suspicious parentage along the way.
Here are couple more questions, would you have to provide birth certificates of your parents in order to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt they they are citizens? How would that work? Would a simple declaration on the birth certificate of the candidate that both parents were born in the United States be enough? What if the parents were naturalized (in which case their place of birth would outside the U.S. on the candidates birth certificate)? Would the candidate then have to provide naturalization documentation for each parent to prove their citizenship? How far would this actually go?
Upholding this would in effect place the family history of every presidential candidate under intense scrutiny. A very slippery slope.
“Mr. Obama’s Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press Club”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid={35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3}
“Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.”
“We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members.”
Yup. Brings a whole new meaning to “who is your daddy?”
I think it was Monroe who said “we were made citizens through our fathers.”
In Reply to JimAZtec:
So under that interpretation we would have to add paternity testing presidential eligibility requirements for president as well as checking the citizenship status of presidential candidate’s parents. Illegitimate children would be automatically disqualified from the presidency I suppose. Sounds very far fetched. The farther this goes the more slippery it becomes.
In Reply to TJ:
Exactly. And thats why SCOTUS will punt and dismiss these cases.
The dice is already rolled. Why give way to re-interpretations fuelled by mis-directed political anger.
In Reply to rxsid:
Let them set themselves up.
Once the SCOTUS decision punts and dismisses their cases, they will be lucky to even get a blip of mention in MSM evening news except as “MOONBATS”.
Something tells me that this Press Conference already assumes that SCOTUS will punt and they want to prepare a defense for that decision via “forcing some news”.
Lets wait and see how many MSM members show up for this.
Just coz you sound off at Nat Press Club doesnt make it full.
This is for Publius and for Joss:
I am certainly glad to be in agreement with you guys! I speak as an accountant having done some auditing. When a company’s financials are really fouled and fraud is suspected greater testing and adjustments are necessary to conform the financials to generally accepted accounting principles. So, the auditing has to be much more extensive so the public (small or great) can have confidence.
Such is the case with Obama. Authority flows down from the head. He wants to be President. He is a Constitutional Law professor. Yet, he acts like he is running for dog catcher! This is madness to me!
Publius: SCOTUS should require the most stringent examination of his case. We need to see every document and the documents should fit together. Furthermore, we should review these documents in light of his associations which are deplorable. All this should fit together.
Other candidates might not need the same amount of vetting due to their information that they release willingly, their circumstances, the upright associations, their responses, attitudes!
Since the press failed to report the facts, SCOTUS must demand all the facts now. Obama cannot make lame excuses (racist, “you don’t do vet other candidates to this extent). Well, Obama is not our usual candidate, and he has very unusual baggage. He is hiding in the extreme.
Joss: I first saw Publius’ A “dog that didn’t bark” theory works for regulatory and statutory law, but does not suffice for purposes of an explication of constitutional law, (particularly in a case of first impression.) … in your reply.
In this case, the Constitution is “The authority that flows from the head”. Legally the Constitution is of first importance. Subsequent case law, opinion, statutes, and personal desires cannot control it.
So, the greater the authority and responsibility, the greater the examination is required. All this so we can have greater confidence!
Since Chief Justice John Roberts will swear in the President-elect, Obama’s case directly touches the SCOTUS and their oaths, like none other. So, the SCOTUS must respond clearly. I think Robert will have an unusual pull on the others to be in agreement. I do not think they can afford to be wrong on this issue, and it must a decisive. They know they are the guardians of the Constitution.
In Reply to TJ: No need for paternity testing, just common sense … something the govt. is incapable of due to Wong Kim Ark. The Presidential qualification should be no different than any other job qualification. You can lie on your job application and might get away with it … but if you get caught….
In Reply to JimAZtec:
I guess I am confused about this idea of common sense.
1. Given the accusations over his birth certificate, I would think there needs to be a discussion about what constitutes a valid citizenship document. It seems to me that though Obama did not provide a full birth certificate, he did provide a notarized, sealed document from the state of Hawaii stating he was born there. Also, the question should be is the type of document he provided satisfactory for the State Dept. for the purposes of getting a U.S. passport? If it is, then that should be enough proof for anyone… even though it might not be a full copy.
2. Common sense says that if you start making more than two tiers of citizenship for the purposes of presidential eligibility then you are creating any multiple classes of people who will have an extra burden of proof based on family circumstance. That means that every candidate who does not have the picture-perfect family will be opened up to undue scrutiny beyond their immediate personal life. What if the candidate’s parents will not cooperate with such scrutiny, should that result in disqualification? Should candidates be forced to take their parents to court to get the need documentation? Seems overly messy. Will adopted children be forced to track down their birth parents? Should children who know their parents be treated differently from adoptive children? Will then illegitimate kids be treated differently because they don’t know who their father is?
3. Common sense says that if there is a birth announcement in the local paper from 1961 saying he was born in Hawaii, he was. Regardless of whether you have seen his birth certificate or not. What purpose would there have been to lie about it so long ago?
4. Placing the burden of parentage on the idea of natural citizenship defies current understanding of the law. As of now, in U.S. law there are only two tiers of citizenship, those who are naturalized and those who are not. (There is a process for naturalizing citizens, otherwise how would you tell. What happens if people start lying on their children’s birth certificates now? Will parents have to bring their birth certificates to the hospital when their child is born. Common sense.) This interpretation would create a third tier of those who are neither.
5. Common sense for any SCOTUS watcher says they will interpret the precedence of law as it stands now, not two hundred years ago. The U.S. government in conferring citizenship has used a two-tier not system, naturalized and natural born. Naturalized citizens have meant those not born in the United States primarily to non-citizen parents. Babies left on the door step, not even knowing whether they are born here, are conferred the rights of natural citizens. So a conservative court is unlikely to create a third tier of citizenship just for the sake of interpreting presidential eligibility as Mr. Paul has oft stated.
As someone who covets common sense, I ask you how would you treat an orphan whose parentage is unknown? Would you say he or she has no right to run for the presidency and support these types of law suits? What does common sense say? There are so many more ways as Mr Paul says to see how this undermines common practice and leads to a situation where all kinds of people who are natural born citizens in every way would not be able to run for the presidency or subject to lawsuits. Common sense says this goes against what the founders had in mind.
In Reply to Anonymous:
Birth certificate is irrelevant to the discussion here.
“Placing the burden of parentage on the idea of natural citizenship defies current understanding of the law.”
That is Natural Law, a law that has as old as man himself. Natural citizenship does not defy American law, but does defy current fictions of law.
“As someone who covets common sense, I ask you how would you treat an orphan whose parentage is unknown?”
Same way as they had always been treated: Adoption.
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
Was just posting as FYI, not as some sort of fact about what SCOTUS (might or might not) do, or anything else. Just FYI 🙂
Here is Leo Donofrio’s research on President Arthur et all’s eligibility concerning the Presidency.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Donofrio says it will be ready later tonight December 4, or maybe December 5, as I understand it.
In Reply to Hugh:
This will be interesting. As said before, I think the fact that the parents’ immigration and Arthur’s birth almost coincided could mean that the parents weren’t yet naturalized. But I’m sure Donofrio will have a lot more to tell. 🙂
Like I said over at Washington Times, Madison’s explanation
of the constitutional term “natural born citizen” must be the correct definition. I say this because it is the only definition that would accomplish the sought goal of requiring the President to be natural born: attachment to this country. Any other definition just returns us back to ANYONE can be president if they were lucky to been born on one inch of claimed US territory. If this was correct then mind as well allow citizens of the world to occupy the WH!!!!!
In Reply to Mr. Paul:
Donofrio and Gary do have a difference on what they think is most critical, but there was no big blowup on last night’s–December 4th Joe Thunder show.
This is a great article. I have studied it in depth as well as confirmed the information contained herein. There is only one way in which “Natural-Born” can be defined, and that is “Being born to 2 US Citizens”. If all it takes to be considered “Natural-Born” is to be born on US Soil, then our Nation is no longer safe.
In Reply to Desperado:
My thoughts are beginning to turn in this direction as well, Desperado.
I’ve been attempting to develop, and simultaneously (but so far, only tentatively) advocate for an exception to this rule for individuals who are nominally dual citizens by virtue of circumstances of their birth but who never avail themselves of the benefits, advantages, or protection of their foreign citizenship as an adult.
IMHO, the admittedly broad definition for the term “natural born citizen” I’m proposing has the benefit of maximizing the available pool of talent from which to draw (hopefully) the best candidates possible for the office of POTUS, consistent with the clear desire expressed by the framers, signers, and ratifiers of the Constitution for presidents and presidential candidates who have the true accountability and demonstrable integrity that flows from undiluted fidelity to the country of their birth. Clearly, this specific outcome would benefit our country in the long term.
However, I am beginning to despair of the extreme lack of tolerance, bordering on mutinous hostility, expressed by many for constitutional rules that do not admit of easy conclusions for specific cases. For instance, in the present example, Americans seeking to determine whether they, or, say, their children, are or should eventually be constitutionally eligible to run for president simply do not have the time or patience to cogitate on the fine points of constitutional interpretation. In other words, it may be impossible to satisfy a majority of U.S. citizens with a SCOTUS-approved definition for “natural born citizen” that is not crystal clear, and backed up by rock solid analysis, even if a majority of citizens do not concur with the conclusion reached, and a fair-sized chunk of the populace (undoubtedly including thousands of rock-ribbed patriots), end up being labeled, for lack of a better term, unfit or unsuitable for the office of POTUS.
I am on the verge of concluding that a definition of “natural born citizen” that includes individuals who are born on U.S. soil to known parents are themselves native-born or naturalized U.S. citizens at the moment of birth of the child in question, but excludes all others, regardless of their particular extenuating circumstances is the only one that will fit this last bill. And although I am aware that many (if not most) modern citizens will find the notion at least somewhat antiquated, if not also downright chauvinistic, I would suggest that it would also be consistent with the original meaning of “natural born citizen” for SCOTUS to find that that the term also covers individuals whose mothers were not U.S. citizens at the time of birth. This would then increase the pool of eligible citizens at least somewhat without deviating from the original criteria of the framers. If we are to be honest, though, and however unfortunate and disappointing this result may be for Mr. Obama and the many millions who voted for him, I am having real trouble seeing where or how SCOTUS can (absent adopting my suggestions for an exception to the general rule) arrive at a formula that will enable us to justify recognizing a child born to a non-naturalized (i.e., alien) father as a constitutionally-qualified natural born citizen. Again, and to be clear, this would appear to be so, regardless of the citizenship status of the mother (U.S. citizen or not), and regardless of the place of birth of the child (on U.S. soil or not).
To have faith in modern polling practices, or to allow ourselves to be influenced f we spend any time at all sampling the wide array of current media options, popular sentiment appears to be running in favor of so-called egalitarian outcomes on questions like these. But if we are to be strictly honest with ourselves, the meaning of any given weighty-sounding word or phrase appearing in the Constitutional is not and never was supposed to bend or shift with the times. Like it or not, we all need to come to grips with the fact that the definition of “natural born citizen” was frozen in time at some point in our history, at least as far back as the moment the 14th amendment was adopted, and possibly as early as the day the original Constitution and ten-amendment Bill of Rights was finally ratified. And clearly at that time (unless I am gravely mistaken), the only individuals who could lay claim to constitutionally-valid ‘natural’ citizenship (i.e., citizenship that is undiluted, pure, facially unchallengeable, legally indisputable, etc.) were those who were born on U.S. soil, to a native-born or naturalized citizen father.
I would dearly love to have at my disposal a service that could go back in time to, say, the late 1860’s, or to the early 1790’s, to conduct polls of the general citizenry to see whether what I am saying now would have resonated with them. Of course, this is impossible. But I have to think SCOTUS has the resources (and at least for now, has the time), to explore primary and derivative sources to piece together some sense of where public sentiment was at that time on this specific topic. So I say–turn them loose, and let’s see what they come up with.
In Reply to Mr. Paul: Hawaii did not claim the details were valid. They are precluded BY LAW from releasing any information other than they have the birth certificate. We don’t know what kind of certificate it is — one for a child born in Hawaii or one for a child born elsewhere and registered in Hawaii.
In Reply to Publius:
No need for both parents to be citizens under laws of nature, just the father. Under US naturalization law the children and their mother collectively became naturalized as a result of the father being naturalized.
Virginia made an exception for mothers to bestow citizenship on the child only in the event the father had died before birth.
In Reply to Publius:
Thanks for explaining why Goldstein did not show Donofrio’s case as a petition but an application for stay. I am not so legally savy.
This seems to be splitting hairs!
As to conspiracies (mentioned in other posts) we are not trying primarily to find or prove conspiracy but we are trying to establish the true facts so we can know where we actually are as a nation, as you have so eloquently expressed in a prior post. When we know all the true facts then we will be able to assess whether or not there has been a conspiracy.
I do not consider Obama’s mother getting an Hawaiian COLB as conspiratorial.
All these lawsuits (Donofrio, Berg, Wrotnowski, etc.) are not asking the SCOTUS to help determine conspiracy, but determine the truth.
Thanks!
In Reply to Nobama:
I completely agree with you.
Barack Obama received his title of ‘citizen of the United States’ under the 14th Amendment.
So did Arnold Schwarzenegger
So does an Anchor Baby
ALL of them can be Senators or Representatives.
NONE of them can be President.
They are all ‘citizens of the United States’ as defined by the 14th Amendment and, unless they were born at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, none of them can be President.
Since when is it the case that “through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.” P.A Madison: Are you living in America in the 21st century? Totally sexist. For one thing, it’s scientifically inaccurate – anyone heard of mitochondrial DNA? But moreover, it’s a standard that has not been actively applied to any other presidential candidate in our history. Or at the very least, this question has not been investigated so thoroughly until, dare I say it, we have a mixed-race president who has a rich history of internationalism… and yet, was born on American soil to an American mother according to his “certificate of live birth”.
More importantly, where were all of you strict constructionists during the past 8 years while GWB has been raping the constitution by destroying our right to privacy and our system of checks and balances?
In Reply to All:
Why do people water down the intent of the constitution? Very simple! To satisfy a certain sect of our society. The largest problem here is the rule of Law and the disregard people have for it. Everyone thinks they can just make it up as they go along and many have tried and Failed. The cities of America have spoken, rural America was ignored and now it is up to the Electorial college to decide our fate. yes people, you didnt decide it, not at all! You made a statement, but your vote no more counted than the man in the moon- Where you live is what counts towards the influnce and hopefully “faithless” electors wont change their minds.
Oh your mom wasn’t a citizen? Your dad wasnt a citizen? Bummer- You are naturalized and thanks to Jefferson it is very difficult to argue! But it can be ignored! Which is about to happen in the US supreme Court! Wouldn’t it be funny If they turned around and said he isnt a citizen! Just one more proof positive that it is easier to lie to the Masses than to One person. Who would believe that this is even a question? Well for one thing if he isnt a citizen it is Going to be hell for him to get a Security clearance for the defense secret service, which even the president has to comply with. People that dont have both parents as US citizen’s dont get High level Security clearance. I am appalled that I get drug over the coals every 4 years for my credit rating to renew my TS Clearance, but Obama will get access to the same info I do and half his family is all over the globe as African country citizens??? I am so confused- what part of being an American Did I miss. if this Pig flies- I say Arnold for President!!!! Well he’s married to an american- why not stretch it a little further. Does anyone know that Colin Powell is Jamaican- Yup Born and raised in Kingston Jamaica!
Oh thats right you dont care because Jefferson and his ideals are outdated.
Cant beat the law so you change it! When you change it then we loose just one more piece of America that made us what we are and for those to come it will never be the same! May God save us from this stupidity- Someone please wake me up from this nightmare…
In Reply to gnat:
Isn’t Madison using the language and the arguments of the time of the framers? If you wish to be non-sexist and add the mother, it doesn’t negate the problem.
The issue hasn’t had to be aired, excepting perhaps the case regarding President Arthur. See: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
You might dare to bring out the race card. The fact is though that the majority of the electorate voted for an African-American and nothing can negate that fact either. It just happens to be that he might not be eligible. An apple is an apple, no matter how much it seemed like an orange during a temporary blindness.
As for me, a life-time Democrat, I’ve been ranting away for the past 8 years about GWB. But simply because I’m happy he’s leaving does not mean I would be happy for him to be replaced by someone who would make a mockery out of what prevents us from anarchy. Without the Rule of Law and those diligently guarding it, that document has no more value than any piece of trash you see in the street.
***** Wall Street Journal Update: Our readers are correct. The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in the case. *****
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/05/obama-citizenship-case-gets-high-courts-attention/
December 5, 2008, 4:18 pm
Obama Citizenship Case Gets High Court’s Attention
Posted by Dionne Searcey
Is Barack Obama legally qualified to serve as president? A group of plaintiffs, who filed more than a dozen lawsuits challenging Obama’s citizenship at birth, say “no.” The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to meet today to decide whether to hear a case that could determine the outcome of whether Mr. Obama will ever become president.
According to this story in The Washington Times, Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear a lawsuit filed by New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference.
Many of the lawsuits concerning Obama’s citizenship contend he was born on foreign soil. We discussed here how one New Yorker took out full-page ads in Obama’s hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, earlier this week to raise questions about whether Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.
But Donofrio’s case takes a different tack. He concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii, as Obama claims. But Donofrio contends Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, according to the story, because he was not exclusively a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya, formerly British East Africa, so Obama was a British citizen as well.
He explains his legal theory on the Citizen Wells Web site: “My law suit challenges his status as a “Ëœnatural born citizen’ based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject. Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth. He was also a U.S. citizen “Ëœat birth.’ He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidate’s status “Ëœat birth,’ hence the word “Ëœborn’ in the requirement.
Some legal analysts say the suits have little chance of success because the Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders or stays sought by Donofrio, according to The Washington Times story. At least four of the court’s nine judges must approve before the case is heard.
***** Update: Our readers are correct. The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari in the case. *****