Because a Constitutional crisis is just what this nation needs right now

The latest, greatest hope of the Obama haters is the "Vattel Theory"--

---which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by Swiss (in earlier drafts, the article had "French") writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.

And since one must be a "natural-born citizen" to be president and   Barack Obama's father was not, as everyone acknowledges,  a U.S. citizen, the whackjobs who have been unsuccessful in their "he was born in Kenya!" effort, are now hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will help in their cause to declare him ineligible to hold office.

 

Comments

[Larry H]

The first web article I found after reading your blog entry uses the phrase "The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Given that everyone is being spoken of in the royal plural, it's not at all clear to me that BOTH parents would have to be citizens to make the definition fit. One citizen parent might suffice.

My perfectly-uneducated guess on this one? Even the Roberts USSC won't touch it.

http://jezekiah.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/the-natives-or-natural-born-citizens-are-those-born-in-the-country-of-parents-who-are-citizens/

-> Thanks to Leo Donfrio’s work, an excellent reference from
-> the late 18th century sheds some light on how the authors
-> of the Constitution would have understood the
-> term “natural born citizen”. The below reference is from
-> Vattel’s 1758 work, “THE LAW OF NATIONS”.
->
-> From the Preface:
->
-> “This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de
-> Vattel is of special importance to scholars of
-> constitutional history and law, for it was read by many
-> of the Founders of the United States of America, and
-> informed their understanding of the principles of law
-> which became established in the Constitution of 1787. “
->
-> And the reference in question:
->
-> 212. Citizens and natives.
->
-> The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound
-> to this society by certain duties, and subject to its
-> authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
-> The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in
-> the country, of parents who are citizens.
-> ...

[RFR]

The Vattel theory has been tried and rejected before. This post at Volokh Conspiracy links to an Indiana Court of Appeals rejecting a challenge to both Obama and McCain's eligibility for President based on the Vattel theory. http://volokh.com/2009/11/18/plaintiffs-posit-that-because-his-father-was-a-citizen-of-the-united-kingdom-president-obama-cant-be-a-natural-born-citizen/

The opinion and the law are straightforward, this latest argument for the birthers is doomed to fail. Which is a good thing, because the only thing arguably worse than a constitutional crisis would be a Biden presidency.

[Pan]

George Washington was born a British subject, as was every president up to Martin Van Buren. Are their presidencies illegitimate too?

[Tim]

I don't have much motivation to look this up, but either the US code or court decisions say a person born to a mother who is a US citizen, is a US citizen. That, to me, would override this Vattel fellow.

[LizH]

And then there's Alan Keyes, who believes that Obama was not a "natural born citizen" because he was born by Caesarian section! We now have Republicans trying to pass a law that is specifically designed to stop what they call "anchor babies", that is, Mexican mothers who travel across the border to have babies that are American citizens. And that would seem to negate this, too, because if that is necessary when there is a non-citizen parent, then how would this apply? As an aside, it seems that most of the undocumented mothers who have babies here have been here more than a few years, so it's not like they all are running over the border at 8 1/2 months pregnant to have babies. I'm sure some do, but not all.

[Wendy C]

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

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

The Supreme Court also upheld this view in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

"The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
"Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

The court ruled:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

[Ellen]

There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, who recommended such things as a state religion for all countries, and not the commonly used meaning of Natural Born at the time the Constitution was written which referred to the place of birth. NO Americans at the time the Constitution was written used Natural Born to refer to parents at all.

Thus Natural Born Citizen excludes foreigners from being president (the citizen part of Natural Born Citizen) and it excludes naturalized citizens from being president (the Natural Born part of the phrase). But there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners or in any way lower in quality than the US-born children of US citizens.

ZORN REPLY -- Vattel also argued, if I'm not mistaken, that citizenship was patrilineal.

[Larry H]

Anchor babies is a whole different question, because the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the USA, regardless of parentage. This is different from the "natural born citizen" requirement particular to the office of the Presidency.

Regarding Washington, Madison, etc, the "citizen at the time of the adoption of this constitution" clause would cover them, but (most likely) not anyone currently alive.

[Ellen]

Anchor babies, like the children of US citizens, are Natural Born Citizens. The meaning of Natural Born at the time that the Constitution was written was simply "born in the country."

That is why there are federal law cases that have statements like this in their rulings:

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

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

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

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

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

"The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States."

This is the current law. If you don't like it, you can certainly try to change the law. But it is the current law.

[Garry]

---Pan: There is a line in the Constitution that's no longer printed except in articles on the Constitution that made anyone residing in the 13 original states at the time of its adoption eligible to be president.

[Dienne]

Haven't we already had some presidents whose parents were not both U.S. citizens? I could look it up, but I'm too lazy. I thought this came up before in this forum.

[bored of the lies]

There are no former presidents who did not either achieve eligibility via the grandfather clause (ie they were a founder), or by having 2 parents who were citizens at the time of their birth, except Chester Arthur who covered his ineligibility up similar to obama, which was only recently discovered.

Re the "latest theory" being vattel - this has actually always been the case and many of us were shouting this before the election. just because you media stooges (who incidentally are responsible for this whole debacle due to either incompetence or dishonesty regarding the reporting of this matter) say otherwise does not make it so. you might fool the masses, but some of us pay attention.

As for "there is no evidence they relied on vattel" - er... perhaps you should read that constitution of yours again... you might notice that the Law of Nations is actually directly mentioned in a different section. similarly, all historical and anecdotal evidence suggests the same, with documentation existing signed by the founders themselves backing this up.

regarding "this has already been tried and the court rule against the plaintiff" - this is not correct. the court dismissed teh case on standing ie the plaintiff did not have the right to question authority. there has been no hearing on the facts and no discovery in ANY case to date.

incidentally, it is irreleavnt where obama is born given the above ie that both parents must be citizens at the time of his birth to make him an NBC. however, if it turns out he wasn't born in hawaii like he says, and his father is who he says, then he is likely not even a citizen since his mother was not old enough to confer citizenship to a child at the time of his birth.

eventually, the birthers will have their day and win. if they werent going to, the courts would have by now accepted a case and allowed discovery as well as having a hearing on the merits of the case. they've so far declined to do that, for timing purposes imo (being just another corporate body out to shaft the public). but dont worry, biden will never be president either - which is a good thing given he's the chump that penned the patriot act which you all blame bush for..

[bored of the lies]

also, just because the law has recently been enforced in a certain way, that does not make it correct. many times such sitations have been changed completely resulting in the overturning of previous decisions.

the constitution is a common law contract - it is written in the language of commerce. as a result every single word and phrase has a specific meaning that cannot lawfully be interpreted in another way. one example of this is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". in the world of contracts, this means subject to the jurisdiction of x ONLY. if it meant anything different to that it would say so.

similarly the two phrases "citizen" and "natural born citizen" clearly mean something different to each other, otherwise two differing terms would not be used. it is not about people being a better class of citizen as someone put it - it is a national security issue where the head of state shuld have undivided loyalty to the country. i dont see anything racist about that!

[bored of the lies]

read in a different light by the way, wong kim ark actually supports that obama is not an nbc. i suggest readnig leo donofrio's research. but i know you wont take his, or my word for it, and i dont expect you to, so here are a couple of other opinions:

The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:

"The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."

http://books.google.com/books?id=gGNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA414&dq=Vattel++"natural+born+citizen"&as_brr=4&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Vattel%20%20%22natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false

in addition, LIFELONG DEMOCRAT, Breckenridge Long - an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School WHO LATER SERVED AS SECRETARY OF STATE as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

the law is all about the EXACT words used, and there proper commerical meanings. using the example i eluded to previously again - namely "subject to the jurisdiction of" meaning "subject to the jurisdiction only of" - which is much like a list of inclusions. in commerce if it is written "including" and then a list, it means ONLY including the contents of that list - because the word only is not necessary to make it clear in commercial language since if the inclusions are not limited to those in the list it will say "including but not limited to".

regarding the laws of england - common law is something different to english common law. common law is based on natural law and simple logic and reason. the founders used this rather than english common law because it was the english rules that they were trying to get away from!!!! they wanted to follow the rules of nature, meaning that the country of a father is the country of a child. if a man with foreign parents is born in a different country, that country will be his place of birth, but his natural allegiance is to the family line and the country of the father and therefore that is his country. reasonably, how many of you know citizens of the usa that would still show or act with allegiance to the country of their ancestors?? many i suspect, proving the point anecdotally.

[bored of the lies]

last post :)

regarding those court cases listed within this comment section by others that refer to children of non citizens being classed as natural born - these are not rulings they are judicial dicta and are therefore non-binding. similary, they did not affect the cases in question and therefore there was no requirement for the statements to be argued. if you're using these as your evidence, there is a long list of cases that say exactly the opposite within their dicta, hence you need to look further than that!

have a nice day.

[Ellen]

Re: "the Law of Nations is actually directly mentioned in a different section."

Answer: No that is because they capitalized words differently than we do now. The Constitution reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

Notice that People are capitalized? And Order, and Union and Justice? They are not books. There is no book called "Blessings of Liberty." The name of the book Vattel wrote (in English) was THE Law of Nations, but in the Constitution the "the' is not capitalized. The L of Law is and the N of Nations, but that is just because they capitalized words that they thought were important.

IF they were actually referring to Vattel's book in the Constitution, they would have written about it in the Federalist Papers (in which Vattel is not mentioned at all) or in a letter between the top Americans at the time, and there is no such. There is no letter saying "let us use Vattel" and nothing that says "let us require two US citizen parents." There is no evidence that they followed Vattel.

Sure, they read him, but they read a lot of other things too. A book far more popular than Vattel with the writers of the Constitution was Blackstone, who wrote: "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

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

NO AMERICAN writing at the time ever used the phrase Natural Born, in either Natural Born citizen or Natural Born subject, differently than Blackstone did. None used it to refer to the parents of the citizen. All used it to refer to the place of birth of the citizen.

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."-----Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

The Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization, and Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan's attorney general. He, like every other leading expert on the Constitution, holds that the intent of the Natural Born citizen clause was to exclude non-citizens and to exclude naturalized citizens. But he does not hold, nor does any other expert, that the clause excludes the US-born children of foreigners. There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution believed that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners, or that the US-born children of foreigners would be any less reliable citizens than the US-born children of US citizens.

[Ellen]

Re: "they wanted to follow the rules of nature, meaning that the country of a father is the country of a child. if a man with foreign parents is born in a different country, that country will be his place of birth, but his natural allegiance is to the family line and the country of the father and therefore that is his country. '

IF they had thought that, they would have said that they did. There are no articles or letters by AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time saying any such thing. Not one. No letter or article saying "let us make the father's citizenship count" or "no man whose father is not a citizen should be president." Nothing like that.

They did write in the Declaration: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." And there is no evidence that they regarded the US-born children of foreigners to be less equal than the US-born children of American citizens. If they had thought that foreigners' children were unreliable or unqualified, they would have told us, but they didn't.

[Jen]

Oh, dear, I'm so sorry that I laughingly quoted some of the thoughts about the constitution above to my husband on Thanksgiving morning. Now he's cleaning up while muttering about the constitution and wondering if commenter above went to Liberty for a law degree and then arguing that even there they can't be that wrong.

Big oops on my part.

[Jen]

Oh and he's also muttering, "it's not a common law contract! A contract?!"

[Chris]

---Oh, this is rich! So now they're relying on some dead French guy to support their claim on the illegitimacy of Obama's presidency?

Keep digging, birthers! We love you for it!

[Jimmy G]

@LizH,

"We now have Republicans trying to pass a law that is specifically designed to stop what they call "anchor babies", that is, Mexican mothers who travel across the border to have babies that are American citizens."

I was not aware that that proposed law was designed to exclude only Mexicans. Do you have any documentation on that?

[bored of the lies]

ah how nice - ridicule. the weapon of choice for many on your side of the debate.

all laws are contracts. you'll soon enough find out that i'm right about that. and given you think they aren't, what else are they!? why do you think the "consent of the governed" is required by governments!? contracts create obligations and require consent. is this not what the constitution does?... why do you think they signed the back? any agreement is a contract - this one isn't even verbal, it's in black and white text like most you will recognise.

regarding the capital letters, this may be contentious, but that matters not to me, and you are free to display your disgust for your fellow man by continuing to ridicule me rather actually using some dilligence and investigating the matter. einstein once said the peak of ignorance was condemnation without investigation.

"they used them differently" (captial letters) because you, and most of the populace, have been indoctrinated into the "modern" system which intentionally uses capital letters differently because they actually mean something in commerical law, which is actually all law. it reads like english, but it is not, however it is still a common language understood by many, including the founders (and in fact all educated people in their day - today people are miseducated to believe you are clever when really we are dumber than before in many ways). largely they are used as a means to obtain your consent for something without you being aware, but this is a complicated process which i will not be delving into today - but it boils down to creating joinder between your physical body and your legal fiction (name) and then obtaining your tacit consent and compliance. they signify legal fictions - labels given to items of substance or persons in order to interact in the commercial world (which is every interaction in your daily life with anyone else - your name is a legal fiction). legal fictions are man-made and are things you cannot actually touch; can you touch Tranquility, Union, Order, Justice ? Of course not -these are man-made concepts, ie fictions, and they rely entirely on our collectively agreed perception! As for People, this word in the constitution is the legal fiction of one party to the contract.

so your quote from the constitution illustrates this if you read it from the correct perspective, but i do appreciate that you won't accept what im saying so i will focus on more easily provable claims.

with regard to blackstone and your comments on that..

there isnt one supreme court decision that defined national citizenship under english common law in line with Blackstone, except for Wong Kim Ark. however this case referred to citizenship, not natural born citizenship. it was ruled that he was a 14th amendment citizen, and therefore since it required a man-made rule to make him "born a citizen" he could not possibly be natural born. what do you think the word natural means? obama himself confirms he was also governed by the british at birth. i presume you realise that he is suggesting dual citizenship is recognised in the usa when even mainstream legal minds accept that it isnt. to be natural born, no choice would be need to be made as to whom to give one's allegiance.. it would "naturally" be self-evident. if there is a choice or a conflict (two countries claiming rights over the person), this means there is a decision to be made which implies that allegiance is not self-evident, and therefore allegiance is not naturally decided but a solution agreed upon or a choice made.. ie the natural chain of events in determining events is broken. not natural born! show me an actual decision where blackstone is used for citizenship/natural born citizenship issues.

and i ask again, if natural born citizen is the same as citizen, why are the words natural born even there? would you agree that no word is insignificant? this has been ruled previously in the supreme court - if you want details ill happily provide them.

john jay the first supreme court chief justice wrote to to General George Washington dated July 25, 1787: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen". hence to be president requires a stricter condition then any other position of government - two citizen parents when the child is born.

you highlight quite rightly the differences between the french and the english position on the matter. perhaps consider, that the french were following the common law or natural law with this decision rather than english common law, with the english at the time attempting to conquer the world. that tends to explain why they would want jurisdiction over as many people as possible would it not?

who was the aggressor in the war of independence in your opinion? citizenship affects the way countries interact with each other which is why the law of nations ie natural law is used in order to determine it... peacefully. which stance is more peaceful, natural law or english common law on the subject? i think you know the answer to this one. so then perhaps consider which the founders, would have preferred? peaceful or aggressive? or maybe you're pro-war.. .who knows!?

you are also quoting the heritage guide published in 2005- is it more likely that historic documents and texts explain the term in question in the way those alive at the time understood it, or is it more likely that a text written 200 years later (and likely indirectly funded by some vested interest in keeping people in the dark) proves it. think occams razor. i would say it is likely the former!

you've thrown reagan and the word conservative at me as if that should shut me up. regrettably for you, i am not a conservative, and similarly i recognise that reagan was just another controlled front man of the elite. superficial political differences are mere theatre, as in fact is all politics (meaning many bloodsuckers - their out to get your blood, ie life-force, ie your effort, ie your labour). it's taken many baby steps to divide and conquer the population as they have done which is why "heroes" are required on both sides of the political theatre to lead each side. so in short, those two words do not earn my respect (why would they!) and certainly do not give credibility to the heritage guide.

this quote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" may be from the declaration, but that is natural law my friend! almost word for word.

and with regard to removing someone elected by the popular vote that turns out to ineligible:

Albert Gallatin [U.S. Senator constitutionally ineligible and his seating unconstitutional and election & seating annulled]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gallatin

and there are several other examples too.

finally to add - i note you've no comment in respect of the quotes in my earlier posts. very telling indeed. how much more will you not answer? if you want a fuller answer on something, you let me know. there are plenty of existing rulings that invalidate your position. contrary to perception i have tried to keep it brief!

here are some cases for you - thank you mario puzo who put this list together for us all to see - the notes next to the case are also his work

"

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens); (2) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (provided the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel); (3) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring, cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of natural born citizens and took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); (4) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36(1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”); (5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (provided the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel); (6) Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel); (7) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations” are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States); (8) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (provided the same Vattelian definition and cited Vattel); (9) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and cited Vattel and quoted his definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett); (10) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (other than Minor v. Happersett, the only U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared someone a “natural born Citizen.” The person was born in the United States to a citizen father and citizen mother through derivative citizenship).

"

[dk]

LOL. This nation is in a constitutional crisis right now. You need to do the research to understand this issue, and judging by the comments and the article, you have not.

Admit it. you don't know your US history, and refuse to believe that you got suckered by not only a non-natural born citizen, but probably an illegal alien--or undocumented worker as you like to call them-- and now you are equally as responsible for the destruction of America as obama. You were punked.

The day of reckoning is coming. Thank you for your idiocy--it has served to awaken the sleeping giant and the left's plan for America's destruction is severely damaged.

ZORN REPLY -- No, no, no.Thank YOU and your ilk for your idiocy, hateful and bizarre thought it is. You're giving me great click traffic on a day that's usually quite dead here at the blog. I'm thankful!

[dk]

By the way, does the constitution allow dual citizens to be President?

Answer, no.

Obama admits he is a dual citizen--actually he is a brit, adopted indonesian, and maybe American tho he won't prove it--prolly has a green card from marrying Michelle--but won't prove that either.

FRAUD. Do you understand that word?

Get a clue people! Obama is illegally occupying the white house.

[Wendy]

Bored with capital letters, too?

From Wikipedia:
"A 1797 English-language edition of the 1758 treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel states the requirements to be "natural-born citizens" as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."[6] However this translation was not available at the time the Constitution was written. Earlier English-language editions of this book printed prior to the Convention in 1787, however, lacked the term "natural-born citizens", using the term "natives" along with the untranslated French term "indigènes" instead.

"This quote reflects the citizenship laws of Vattel's native Switzerland; two paragraphs later, he notes that "...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner."[7] This reading of "natural-born" is more applicable to US law, which is generally founded on English common law."

As for the line from the Constitution:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, ==or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution==, shall be eligible to the Office of President..."

Here, "Citizen" obviously refers to Americans of foreign birth granted citizenship at the creation of this country and adoption of this Constitution.
But you birthers 'keep pushin' on', as REO Speedwagon would say.

[Garry]

@bored of the lies:
1. Please learn proper capitalization & punctuation.

2. You remind me of the old guys I would see at the library writing something all day in the smallest writing possible. Page after page. When I finally was able to read some of it, it was all gibberish!

[Colony14Author]

That most Americans - and Tribune writers - are ignorant of the U.S. Constitution and its history is no reason to ignore it.

The applicable section of the U.S. Constitution reads:

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

It is correct that George Washington was not a natural born citizen; that is why the clause above was written to include an exception for such persons. Without that exception, it would have been 1824 (35 years after 1789) before anyone could have served as president.

The terms citizen, native born citizen, natural born citizen, and naturalized citizen are NOT interchangeable. If they were, the four different terms would not exist. The Founding Fathers used the term natural born only once in the Constitution - in the section above. They also knew full well of Vattel's Law of Nations, and contemporary correspondence makes it clear what they meant by the term natural born citizen. (Had James Madison meant "native born" he would have written "native born." He did not. In fact, the wording of the clause would have been far simpler had he intended only "native born.")

The issue of the definition of "natural born citizen" is not a "fall back" scheme because "birthers" could not prove Obama was not born in Hawaii. From day one many of us have argued that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Nor is John McCain. Nor is Bobby Jindal or Mario Rubio (if their parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their births, which I believe is the case.)

For those trying to confuse the Obama eligibility issue with Fourteenth Amendment claims, that Amendment was meant only to declare former slaves to be U.S. citizens after the Civil War. The term natural born citizen does not appear in the Amendment. That is a straw man argument. The simple truth is that the Supreme Court has never ruled ion the meaning of the term natural born citizen. The only reason Obama is fighting the eligibility cases is that he fears it will rule against him. If it were a slam dunk argument in his favor he would not be battling the lawsuits with high--paid lawyers.

The eligibility issue has nothing to do with Obama's race. (Racism is the charge used by everyone who has not other argument... and it is getting to be quite a stale argument.) It has to do with following the U.S. Constitution. I might personally prefer Jindal or Rubio as president, but if they cannot legally serve, then so be it.

And, for the record, Obama also cannot legally serve as president because he relinquished his U.S. citizenship - if he ever even had it - when he was adopted by stepfather Lolo Soetoro. Obama then became a citizen of Indonesia, and there is not record of him ever becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen after returning to the United States. (Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.) Arguably, therefore, Obama also could not legally serve as U.S. Senator from Illinois. He is an illegal immigrant and could be deported.

Obama is also guilty of fraud for collecting $700 million+ in illegal campaign contributions by deceiving the public into believing he was eligible to serve. Contributors should file a class action lawsuit against him to recover their donations. Federal prosecutors should file RICO charges against Obama.

Read The Obama Timeline and learn how we got into this predicament. The fraud and deception has been astounding.

[Colony14Author]

----Note to leftists who believe that Obama is a natural born citizen:

You are not allowed to say a word in protest should Bobby Jindal or Marcio Rubio ever win the presidency. If the Constitution does not apply to Obama, it does not apply to Jindal or Rubio either. (Or are only leftists permitted waivers?)

ZORN REPLY -- Don't worry, Col', we're not that pathetic and desperate.

[jlp]

@ bored of the lies:

"last post :)"

Hey, you broke your promise!

[walshenator@gmail.com]

Liberals seem to be in search of "haters". Where do you come up with this stuff EZ?

Obama is doing a fine job of proving he is not up to the job. He will be forced out of office the old fashioned way.

[idioteraser]

"Obama also cannot legally serve as president because he relinquished his U.S. citizenship - if he ever even had it - when he was adopted by stepfather Lolo Soetoro. "

Not true. US citizenship law doesn't have such a stipulation that if a US citizen is adopted, becomes knighted (or any such title that also carries citizenship of that particular country) or acquires citizenship by being born in a foreign country or acquire citizenship by marriage that they lose their US citizenship.

A minor child cannot be striped of their citizenship due to the decisions of an adult. Relinquishing of a US citizenship is next to impossible and is documented.

US citizenship laws do not require a US citizen who is born a citizen of multiple countries or acquires them automatically as a result of marriage etc to relinquish the other citizenships.

"Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include: "

Notice the voluntarily and intent to relinquish US citizenship? That doesn't apply to a minor child when the citizenship would be automatically granted. A person can be a citizen of over a dozen countries and not be legally required to renounce any of their citizenships or lose them for having multiple citizenships. A US citizen can be naturalized in a foreign country, take a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state, serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government and not lose citizenship if the person wishes to keep their US citizenship.

ZORN REPLY -- Please, don't confuse the wingnuts with the facts.

[Larry H]

"The issue of the definition of "natural born citizen" is not a "fall back" scheme because "birthers" could not prove Obama was not born in Hawaii. From day one many of us have argued that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Nor is John McCain. Nor is Bobby Jindal or Mario Rubio (if their parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their births, which I believe is the case.)"

And yet, only when a Democrat is president does your team make an issue of it. You remind me of the Tea Partiers who insist that they are non-partisan because they disapprove of Bush's deficit spending too--only they didn't protest Bush's spending when Bush was actually in office. Guess what? Complaining about BOTH parties, but only when DEMOCRATS are in power, doesn't make you non-partisan. What it makes you is hypocritical.

You're delusional if you think you "birthers" are going to prevail on this issue. I don't mean that I disagree with your position (though I obviously do). I mean that no court in the land is going to give you the legitimacy you seem to think is so self-evident, not even the Roberts USSC. Whether you like it or not, that's the way it's going to be. Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Deal with it.

[James]

ZORN REPLY -- No, no, no.Thank YOU and your ilk for your idiocy, hateful and bizarre thought it is. You're giving me great click traffic on a day that's usually quite dead here at the blog. I'm thankful.

Good to see that you trust the members of Congress who steal your money and give it to the enemies of this country. Where was this trust during the Bush years I wonder?Ohh those heady days when dissent was good and patriotic!! But today dissenters are called ilk, idiots , and wingnuts all displayed so accurately by the author of this blog. Rest assured statist that whether or not Obama is eventually found to be ineligible or not your statist dream is over. I am thankful of Obama,Pelosi, and Reid for showing the statists true colors.

[bored of the lies]

"And yet, only when a Democrat is president does your team make an issue of it"

nope. as a previous poster mentioned, mccain was ineligible also (being born in panama - not within the us base, although that would have made no difference since contrary to popular belief a military base is not us soil, which the state department manual confirms).

many of us tried to highlight this before the election and therefore before either became president without eligibility, in order to avoid the very crisis some of you speak of. regrettably the media would not publish any of it and were quick to ridicule and hijack the debate by focussing on the birth certificate. this way they could string out the debate since it was already discreditting in the eyes of the masses who care not for the details.

as for my lack of punctuation and capital letters - i really dont think that matters. surely you can tell from the tone of my writing that i would be more than capable of doing this... i just choose not to as is my right since im trying to explain something so you are not shocked when the decision finally comes out against obama but i have limitted time to sit here and explain what has become a complex issue (although it should not be). i am not wasting my time being grammatically correct when that is not necessary to resolve the debate - it is however something else that you can ridicule if you are unable to answer the other points of debate.

to be honest, im not really sure why zorn is on here calling people hateful and accusing people of idiocy. is it idiocy to attempt to discuss something in full and get to the bottom of the matter properly, having understood the perspectives of all sides?? in fact is this not a journalists' job?? clearly im being forced to do this since the journos won't cover it! why not is what people should be asking!?

there is no need for insults. and just because someone else insults you, one could always rise above it, or respond with reason..

enjoy your day ladies and gentlemen.

[The Oracle]

Based on Republican justices on the Supreme Court throwing out 100 years of legal precedence in Citizens United, and Republican legal advisers to George W. Bush throwing out 100 years of legal, statutory and U.S. international treaty precedence to advise Bush that waterboarding isn't torture, I'd have to say that Republicans, in the legal profession or otherwise, will make their decision based on whatever their little conservative hearts (and brains) tell them, no matter how twisted, no matter what facts and truth to the contrary. I think it's genetic, one "precedence" apparently that Republicans can't throw out....craziness and gullibility being part of their genetic makeup. Along with greed, racism, homophobia, warmongering and lack of any compassion for anyone else. Poor Republicans, it's in their genes.

[Larry H]

"Where was this trust during the Bush years I wonder?Ohh those heady days when dissent was good and patriotic!! "

See why the most appropriate remark to Republican complaints is "I know you are, but what am I?"

The "heady days when dissent was good and patriotic" was in 1999 when Republican congressmen felt it their patriotic duty to criticize a US President for launching a war (in Yugoslavia). Only three years later with Bush in the White House did "criticizing a president during wartime" become tantamount to treason. Now that a Democrat is president again--it's perfectly ok to attempt to bring down the president again.

And to anyone who can't construct a sentence about liberals without the word "statist" every other word--think about what exactly you oppose ABOUT statism. Something about institutional coercion over individual liberties, right? Well, why is it so ok with you when the SAME THREAT is perpetrated by private corporations rather than (at least theoretically) democratically-elected governments. There used to be a word for the libertarian paradise you're fighting for--feudalism.

[Garry]

1. I love that the wing-nuts come up with all these pseudo clever names to sign their posts.
Gee wackos, use a regular first name. Make one up for all I care.

2. Did Drudge link to Zorn? Where did the wackos come from?

[swan]

Hawaii refused to certify Obama as Eligible per the constitution, they has that part taken out deliberately because they O was not eligible. Pelosi knew it. It's all in the evidence , whether you afterbirthers know it or not.

[Larry H]

Just two years ago, I had to renew my passport. To do so, I got a certified copy of my birth cirtificate from Cook County to prove that I was born in Chicago (and therefore, in the United States). The certified copy that they sent, which was good enough for the US Government, was titled "Certificate of Live Birth".

I have no idea why you birthers think a Certificate of Live Birth from the STATE of Hawaii is not legitimate. That's what the danged things are called.

Last I heard from Hawaii, the governor DOES certify that Barack Obama was born there in 1961. It's not a question of "whether WE know it or not." The birthers are the ones who refuse to accept the facts, no matter how many times they are presented. Get this: Barack Hussein Obama IS the President of the United States. Deal with it. Or if you can't, then...y'know...knock yourself out. Watching you cry like babies because you aren't getting your way is small consolation for the latest election, but it is SOME consolation.

[Robert Pruter]

Bored of the Lies, you should use proper punctuation. It reflects poorly on you as a poster, making you seem like a crank. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously post like a mature adult.

[Chilidog]

I really hope that some birther nut republican congressman tries to make an issue out of this in Congress. They will look like the total fools that they are.

[Wendy C]

After reading some of the above, I promise I will never again accuse Jimmy G of being too extreme.

[Ellen]

--Replying to Larry R"

You said: 'Nor is John McCain. Nor is Bobby Jindal or Mario Rubio (if their parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of their births, which I believe is the case.)"

All three of them, and Obama, are all Natural Born Citizens. Jindal, Rubio and Obama due to their birth in the USA. All US citizens who were born in the USA are natural born citizens. And McCain was too, due to his birth abroad to two US citizen parents.

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

As you can see, there are two criteria for Natural Born Citizen status. The first is birth within the jurisdiction, which applies to Obama and to Jindal and Rubio too. The second is birth abroad to citizen parents, which applies to McCain.

[Garry]

Ellen: Not only were McCain's parents US citizens temporarily abroad, but they were abroad only because McCain's father was a US navy officer assigned to the Panama Canal Zone. For anyone to imply he's not a natural born citizen means they are degrading anyone serving in the military!
In other words, they really don't believe in this country or those who have sacrificed for it!

[Ellen]

---Re: 'Ellen: Not only were McCain's parents US citizens temporarily abroad, but they were abroad only because McCain's father was a US navy officer assigned to the Panama Canal Zone."

Answer: Personally I agree that McCain was eligible, as was Obama of course. But there are many who hold that he would be eligible even if his parents were merely tourists visiting a foreign country, so long as they were US citizens. Meese, in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution says that many would argue that George Romney (the father of Mitt Romney) was eligible although he was born in Mexico (and his parents were not in the military).

But Meese is not quite certain, since he does not say that he agrees with this himself, only that many would argue. In any case, he says that there is no question that a US citizen who was born IN the USA, as Obama was and has proven it, is Natural Born.

[Robert]

I really enjoy seeing this bubbling up into "mainstream" papers. This is NOT new. Clarence Thomas has already said the court is "ducking" this issue. Patriots like Mr. Donofrio have unearthed reams of support material. Obama is well aware of this issue. That is why he the FIRST cosponsor of the McCaskill bill to support John McCain. LMFAO.

http://mccaskill.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=297116

[Robert]

Oh, I forgot to add. Expect challenges in every state to his eligibility if he dares run (he won't). First, Secretaries of State will be challenged in court to show why they certified him. They will rely on the counsel of their state AG. Then the Attorneys General will be challenged in court. This will go to the high court. If Obama's numbers are bad, slam dunk he loses.

[Ellen]

Re: "Further US v. Wong Kim Ark holds that the native born child of an alien can never be a natural born citizen.'

Who told you that. It is completely and totally wrong. The Wong Kim Ark ruling held that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born and that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. Since he was both a citizen and Natural Born, he was a Natural Born Citizen--as is every US citizen who was born in the USA.

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

The Heritage Foundation is a CONSERVATIVE organization, and Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan's attorney general.

[Ellen]

Re: "what in your lying pea brains is the difference between a Citizen and a natural born Citizen? '

The difference is that the category Citizen includes naturalized citizens. The category Natural Born Citizen does not include naturalized citizens.

[Larry H]

"So what in your lying pea brains is the difference between a Citizen and a natural born Citizen?"

Who's the more pea-brained? The one who thinks the President is the President? Or the one who keeps insisting things are going to happen (like Obama will be declared ineligible) as if those things are foregone conclusions and keeps batting .000 percent on those predictions. I don't care how iron-clad the legal arguments are that you believe when you hear them from Rush Limp-balls. I'm asking about results. Has ONE of your predictions about how this will all go down come true?

Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Deal with it!

[Wendy C]

Here is an actual read of U.S. Code Section 1401, before translation by psychos. In particular, notice the first sentence. Clearly, the definition of natural-born is considered 'a citizen at birth'.

Natural-born citizen

==Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?==

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

[Occam]

Bottom Line ...

Why won't Obama allow his birth records to be made public?
Why would he spend a fortune in legals fees keeping those documents secret?
What is he so afraid of?
What is he hiding?

[Garry]

13 comments!
13 comments from one loon with hardly one other person chiming in!
ttb: Do you understand you're nut!
Linda Lingle, the governor of Hawaii, no make that Linda Lingle, the REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR of Hawaii says she saw the actual, original birth certificate & it shows he was born in a Honolulu hospital.

So now, Republican Governors are in on the conspiracy to cover up where Obama was born?

And what on earth is an obot?

Look, I'm pissed off at Obama for selling us out on healthcare reform, but you suffer from ODS, Obama Derangement Syndrome!

Please go back to posting on Little Green Footballs & Free Republic. They're welcoming to people with such serious mental disorders!

[swan]

I am swan. an afterbirther removed my post (above) and added theirs in my name. Pelosi knew Obama was Not Qualified, Hawaii refused to sign the DNC'sdisability paperwork with the Constitution Quote on it. They submitted one without the Quote instead, look it up yourself.

[e.vattel]

mr. zorn...before we begin ..Vattel is Swiss...not French the WND is correct when they write Swiss..but you changed it to French.

United States v Wong Kim Ark has 50 pages of argument..to show citizenship of Ark born jus soli to foreign parents. This is the route Obama gained citizenship if he was born in Hawaii.

Please explain to your readers..how is it possible..a natural born citizen needs 50 pages of argument in a Supreme Court case to prove citizenship.

A natural born citizen is not made by law...it requires no law...born on the soil to citizen parents.

[e.vattel]

Minor v Hapersett:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th(39th Congress):

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is 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

Vattel:

Book One, Chapter 19 § 212. Citizens and natives

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

[Wendy]

A number of conservative commentators have strongly criticized the birther theorists and their effect on the wider conservative movement. Columnist Michelle Malkin has written that "birth certificate hunters have lurched into rabid Truther territory" and that "they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being part and parcel of the grand plan to install Emperor Obama and usurp the rule of law."

Leslie Savan of The Nation commented:
“The Birthers go beyond simple conspiracy theories — they're cast members of the ongoing American denying-reality show, not unlike the folks who deny the moonlanding or the Holocaust, and very much like the Creationists who insist that the Earth is but 6,000 years old, the Teabaggers who refuse to believe they must pay taxes, the 9/11 Truthers who say the government attacked the Twin Towers, and, as we might call them, the Inhofers who believe global warming is a hoax.”

Michael Medved, a prominent conservative talk-show host, has attacked birthers’ theorists as "crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters" who are "the worst enemy of the conservative movement" and "make us look sick, troubled and not suitable for civilized company."

Chip Berlet, a journalist who has studied the spread of conspiracy theories, notes "For some people, when their side loses an election, the only explanation that makes sense to them – that they can cope with – is that sinister, bad, evil people arranged some kind of fraud."

[Garry]

Because I'm a relatively sane person, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing with absolute, total lunatics!
You go on ranting with your made up words [obots, for one] that none of the rest of us understand.
Soon, the big men in white coats & giant, heavy duty butterfly nets will capture you & put you where you belong. The room will have soft walls & the mattress will be fastened to the floor. The door will be locked & you'll have to eat with your hands, as you won't be allowed anything that could be made into a weapon.
You'll get a regular dose of happy pills & there won't be any worries for you.
Won't that be nice for the rest of us!

[Eric Zorn]

FROM ZORN -- Sorry, folks, a bout with the flu kept me away from monitoring these boards for several days. "tfb" has been removed and banned for posting under more than one name, for namecalling and incivility. Opposing views are more than welcome here at Change of Subject, but not flamethrowing.

[phil]

What will they try to come up with next with Obama is reelected?

[DaveB]

Chip Berlet, a journalist who has studied the spread of conspiracy theories, notes "For some people, when their side loses an election, the only explanation that makes sense to them – that they can cope with – is that sinister, bad, evil people arranged some kind of fraud."

Posted by: Wendy | Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 09:46 PM

Like, for instance, in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.

[Ellen]

Re: "You are not allowed to say a word in protest should Bobby Jindal or Marcio Rubio ever win the presidency. If the Constitution does not apply to Obama, it does not apply to Jindal or Rubio either. (Or are only leftists permitted waivers?)'

Answer: There is no question whatsoever that both Jindal and Marcio Rubio are Natural Born Citizens because they were born in America and hence fulfill the definition.

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."----Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

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

They are like Obama, born in the USA, and hence Natural Born Citizens regardless of whether their parents were US citizens at the time that they were born or not. By the way, both Scalia and Alito, conservative members of the US Supreme Court, had fathers who were born in Italy, and it is not clear whether the justices were born before or after their fathers were naturalized. Either way, the justices are likely to feel that it does not make any difference, that their allegiance to the USA would be just the same if their fathers were naturalized after than if the fathers were naturalized before. And there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution held that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners or were to be more distrusted than the US-born children of US citizens.

[Ellen]

Re: Vattel. There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, who is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers even once. Instead, they followed the meaning of Natural Born in the common law and the laws of the colonies that referred only to the PLACE of birth.

There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution believed either that the US-born children of foreigners were foreigners, or that they believed that the US-born children of foreigners should be more distrusted than the US-born children of US citizens.

ZORN REPLY -- Once again, I call rubbish on those who prostrate themselves at the genius of the founders. The word "natural" here is so ill-defined as to be either ambiguous or irrelevant. Any good editor would have circled it and demanded clarification. There is, by the way, no definition of "natural" that suggests the citizenship of one's parents. What the zealots on this board fail to appreciate is that not even the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court is crabbed and ill-motivated enough to find in that language a definition as they suggest. The consequences of a majority finding in favor of this bizarre interpretation would be ghastly and provoke a serious national crisis.

[Ellen]

Re: "A natural born citizen is not made by law...it requires no law...born on the soil to citizen parents.'

Answer; Who told you this? It is wrong.

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

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

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

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

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

[Wendy C]

@DaveB

I never said Republicans hold the monopoly on insanity and/or delusional behavior, they just seem proud to represent the highest percentage of nutjobs within their party. As I posted above, at least some Republicans realize the danger in courting such an unbalanced group of voters. While I'm grateful that Zorn bounced the worst of them off this thread, sometimes it's educational to be exposed to their rantings. It's a warning call to those who would sit out elections, allowing these extremists to take over the Congress and White House.

[e.vattel]

The US Supreme Court defined a natural born citizen. This has not changed since the ruling. It matches Vattel's definition of a natural born citizen.

Ben Franklin wrote Vattels Law of Nations is being put to good use by the Founders.

Any articles, books..lower court rulings cannot trump Minor v Hapersett.

One more item.... Vattel's Law of Nations gave the Founders the idea to form the states into a country..and..to have their revolution. Suggest the author study Vattel and the relationship with the Founders.

US Supreme Court.. Minor v Hapersett:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

[DaveB]

Wendy, I agree, except that I think there are enough nutjobs to go around. For every birther, there's a truther claiming that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job (the renowned metallurgist Rosie O'Donnell claiming that fire can't melt steel being just one example), someone claiming that the 2004 election was stolen by hacking the Diebold voting machines in Ohio, or someone crying that the 2000 election was stolen by keeping minority voters away from the polls in Florida. There's insanity wherever you look.

Myself, I think that the birthers are fighting the wrong battle. If they want Obama gone so much, they should focus on beating him on the first Tuesday in November 2012. If their argument ever makes it into the courts and succeeds, it would take longer than that to remove BHO anyway. Perhaps they don't think that they can do that, so they are flogging this non-issue. I call it a non-issue because it wasn't a big deal in the 2008 campaign; if there had been something there, you know that the Karl Roves of the world would have been all over it!

[e.vattel]

Permit me to add the words of James Madison...at the Convention...in 1787 during the drafting of the Constitution...

"In the first case they would be independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations"

This is from the Congressional records.

.

[e.vattel]

From the book....The Catholic Conception of International Law:

.a violation of the law of nations," citing in this respect Vattel. "Upon the same principle" -to qoute from the argument as reported--"that the infringement of a statute is an indictable offence, though the mode of punishment is not pointed out in the act itself, an offence against the law of nations, while they compose a part of the law of the land, must necessarily be indictable."

Chief Justice McKean, a man of large political and judicial experience and himself a signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated the trial to be a case of "first impression in the United States"; that it was to be determinded "on the principles of the law of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania."

[e.vattel]

Answer; Who told you this? It is wrong.

"Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

Edwin Meese did not write the above statement in the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. It was James C. Ho. The link is provided.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/James_C_Ho_TheHeritageguidetotheConstitution.jpg

[William Talbert]

Doesn't anyone who runs for office have to submit all there papers? and does the government have the responsibility to insure that all is order before they can even run for a office such as congress or other offices?. This makes me feel that trusting states and the government maybe all in vane, when getting to the truth on something.
Thanks

[e.vattel]

--- Obama.... Vattel syllabus 1994 ..

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/Obama_Syllabus_Vattel.jpg

[Ellen D.]

English Common Law is not any different from what Vattel says, so I don't understand why some people think that supports their case. Besides, the US doesn't use ECL...but anyway

Under ECL, a natural born subject can be born of an alien ONLY IF the alien father became a subject first.

Same thing under natural law, if Obama had been born in Hawaii he could be a natural born Citizen ONLY IF his alien father had naturalized as a US citizen first.

[Gordon]

US law defines a citizen. Just a "citizen". Nothing else.

Now, Article I says a citizen can run for congress, not the presidency. Well, at one point up til 1787 a person could just be a "citizen" and be president, but not after (that's in Article II, it was because the country was too young to have any 2nd generation natural born citizens yet).

Know how I know all this? I read the law, and I read the Constitution. You can too, for free, it's all over the internet! Woohoo!

So don't go be trying to stick natural born citizen into laws where it doesn't exist, that would be dishonest.

Is this in any way unclear?

Natural Born Citizen = jus soli jus sanguinis both parents, think of it as pure unadulterated American, a 2nd generation American, born only American.

[Matt]

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. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “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))

Now keep in mind that Obama's father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, nor did he ever become a citizen at any time after that.

Here's what Article II section 1 says about Presidental qualifications:

Article II - The Executive Branch

Section 1 - The President

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

Here's what the 14th ammendment states, and please stay with me here, I'll explain my purpose afterwards.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

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

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Now, the reason I want to show you this is because most people who argue with me about this unwittingly site the 14th amendment in saying that anyone born here is a citizen, which, as you can see is true, however, they usually then go on to claim that anyone who is a citizen is eligible to be President, which is not true.

ZORN REPLY -- So if I read you right, you're saying that if Obama's father had been the native Kansan and his mother had been the Kenyan immigrant, all would be swell because, by your lights, natural law says citizenship lines follow the father?
And, honestly, you expect any contemporary court to endorse this sort of sexist claptrap? This extra-legal interpretation of natural law found nowhere in our statutes or founding documents? With the result of a president being removed from office?
If so, you are completely mad.

We have to look very carefully at the terminology, in the 14th we see the word citizen, but in Article II we see the term natural born citizen.

The two different terms were used for a reason, to differentiate between two very different types of citizenship status. The term citizen used in the 14th can be used to describe one born on US soil to one or two foreign parents(as is the case with Barack H. Obama II), or one who has been naturalized, and is now a citizen.

The term Natural born citizen used in Article II is defined above as one who requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature their fathers citizenship as well as his name through birth.

So, even though Barack H. Obama II’s mother was an American citizen, he can only be considered a citizen (if it is true that he was born in Hawaii) and not a natural born citizen since his father was not an American citizen, and he cannot be eligible to hold the office of president.

.

[Ellen]

Re: “The US Supreme Court defined a natural born citizen. This has not changed since the ruling. It matches Vattel's definition of a natural born citizen.”

Answer: NO it didn’t. It never said that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents. It said that EVERY child born in the USA is natural born.

That is why Edwin Meese, RONALD REAGAN’S ATTORNEY GENERAL, was the editor of the volume that contained this:

““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

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

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

It is also why the Wall Street Journal wrote this: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.’

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

Re: “Ben Franklin wrote Vattels Law of Nations is being put to good use by the Founders.”

Answer: And, guess what, they read a lot of other books too.

Re: “it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Answer: That was written only because Minor had two citizen parents. Having a doubt does not mean that something is either right or wrong. It is only a doubt. In any case, the Minor ruling was overturned by the Wong Kim Ark ruling which said very clearly that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born.

Its actual words were: “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.’

The reason that Meese and all the other constitutional experts say that a Natural Born citizen is a citizen at birth, mainly those who were born in the country, is that it is clear from the Gray ruling that a Natural Born citizen is the combination of a citizen and a person who was natural born. Wong was ruled to be a citizen, and EVERY child born in the USA was ruled to be Natural Born. Logically therefore, Wong was a Natural Born citizen.

That is why there have been federal court rulings like this;

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

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

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

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

Re; Meese. I see that he was the editor and not the writer of the actual quotation. However, he was the editor and the Heritage Foundation published it. There is absolutely no evidence that they disagreed with it, and if they did, they could have gotten another writer to write something else. The quotation represents Ho's, Meese's and the Heritage Foundation's thinking on this point.

[Ellen]

Re: 'Natural Born Citizen = jus soli jus sanguinis both parents, think of it as pure unadulterated American, a 2nd generation American, born only American. '

Who told you that? It is wrong. There is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution considered that the US-born children of foreigners were of lower quality or should be more distrusted than the US-born children of US citizens. if they had thought that--which would be silly, since they had written: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'--then they would have told us.

The meaning of Natural Born was very clear in the common law and in the laws of the American colonies, and it did not refer to parents. It referred only to the place of birth. The two-parent theory is based on the laughable idea that not only did the writers of the constitution switch completely from Natural Born based on place to Natural Born based on parents, but that they created a new combination of both place and parents--and did so without telling us about it.

NO, they didn't.

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

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

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

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

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

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

[Tim]

I would just add that in addition to, apparently, being a book, "the law of nations" also refers to the generally accepted body of international law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_gentium

So, it's my opinion that writing about "the law of nations" would seem to reference those commonly-accepted principals, rather than this particular manuscript.

[Larry H]

-> The term Natural born citizen used in Article II is
-> defined above as one who requires no act of law to
-> establish the fact the child inherits through nature
-> their fathers citizenship as well as his name through
-> birth.

"Thier father's citizenship" is a matter of law and custom, not of nature. Citizenship by virture of birth in the territory seems to me to be more an appeal to "nature".

You're apparently blinded by a Eurasian view of citizenship, by which only ethnic Germans are German, and only ethnic Sweedes are Sweedish, and ethnic Koreans are not Japanese, no matter that they are nth generation residents of Japan. America explicity rejected that notion of ethnic citizenship. Think about that when you profess that your side "loves America" and that my side is trying to destroy the country. Which side argues the American-exceptionalist view that our unique way of looking at citizenship is superior? And which side can't even understand the question?

-> So, even though Barack H. Obama II’s mother was an
-> American citizen, he can only be considered a citizen
-> (if it is true that he was born in Hawaii) and not a
-> natural born citizen since his father was not an
-> American citizen, and he cannot be eligible to hold
-> the office of president.

The proof is in the pudding. Barack Obama IS the president. You keep predicting an imminent crisis when states and courts start de-certifying him, blah, blah, blah, but I'll bet you all the money in my pocket against all the money in yours that he WILL be the Democratic candidate in 2012, and that neither the GOP-controlled congress (majority in the House, filibuster in the Senate) nor the GOP-leaing Roberts court will do anything LIKE what you keep saying they will.

[Ellen]

Re; "Under ECL, a natural born subject can be born of an alien ONLY IF the alien father became a subject first.'

Who told you this? It is wrong.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

[Matt]

ZORN REPLY -- So if I read you right, you're saying that if Obama's father had been the native Kansan and his mother had been the Kenyan immigrant, all would be swell because, by your lights, natural law says citizenship lines follow the father?
And, honestly, you expect any contemporary court to endorse this sort of sexist claptrap? This extra-legal interpretation of natural law found nowhere in our statutes or founding documents? With the result of a president being removed from office?
If so, you are completely mad.

My information is quoted directly from the law of nations, and all my research is based on fact. It's just hard for you to swallow the fact that the vetting process was ignored, and not done the normal way, Hawaii never certified his cantidacy, Pelosi certified it, and sent a copy of it to Hawaii, and the wording on the certification was changed to leave out the part about constitutional eligability.
Compare his official certification document's wording with the one for John Kerry, or Al Gore, they are worded very different, and there can be only one reason why: to help Obama slip through the cracks mostly unnoticed, and ignored. You're a reporter sir, look into these documents which are part of public record, and see for yourself, how the wording is changed, and then try to think why.

[LizH]

Well, gee, Matt, this really explains why all those Republican members of the "party of No" have just let this slide for over 2 years - somehow a document that you say was not done the "normal" way was overlooked & they just let John Roberts swear him into office, and he's been signing bills, etc, because, what - they're going to bring this all up later (when they have time?)? Are we to pretend that the last 2 years have been another one of Bobby Ewing's dreams?

[RFR]

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case this morning.

[Matt]

Because the media holds Obama as their little darling and started it when he first began his campaign, and they attack anyone who brings up the so called "birther" issue so people in positions of power are afraid to speak up for fear of damaging their career.
What you and your colleagues should be doing is an extensive investigation of this, and examine all the facts objectively like I have for the last year and a half.
I too thought it was a ridicoulous bunch of nonsence when I first heard of it too, but I decided to do my own research, which is what you should do instead of treating me like a jerk.

[Matt]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20284727/JB-Williams-III-DNC-Failed-to-Certify-Obama

Please at least take the time to look this over.

[Wendy C]

"Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case this morning."

I'm sure a minor detail like this won't stop the crusade to have Obama declared an illegal alien. What's next, oh righteous ones, shall you bring up his so-called Muslim upbringing again?

[Jimmy G]

@LizH,

" this really explains why all those Republican members of the "party of No" have just let this slide for over 2 years - somehow a document that you say was not done the "normal" way was overlooked & they just let John Roberts swear him into office, and he's been signing bills, etc, because, what - they're going to bring this all up later (when they have time?)? "

Yes, that is it. I admit it. It was all a conspiracy. We knew Obama would be the best thing to ever happen to the Republican Party. We knew that, after two years of Obama, the voters would give the Republicans a historic 63 seat pickup in Congress. We could disqualify Obama any time we want but we don't because he is doing our bidding. After he is in office two more years, the Democratic Party will be completely destroyed.

[Ellen]

Re: "This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced."

If that were true, the writers of the Constitution would have said it. They would have told us that they were relying on "natural law." Actually, they were about 70% lawyers and judges, and when they used a term like Natural Born, they took it from the LAW, and the law that they were familiar with was common law.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

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

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

[Larry H]

Is a father even REQUIRED on a birth certificate? What if a child is born on American soil to an American mother with "father unknown"? The baby is born a citizen, but not a "natural born citizen"?

[Ellen]

Re: "What if a child is born on American soil to an American mother with "father unknown"? The baby is born a citizen, but not a "natural born citizen"?

Who told you that? It is wrong. EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

[Matt]

Ellen, you're getting confused about the 14th amendment, every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Citizen.

Only those born on US soil to two citizen parents can be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

[Larry H]

-> Only those born on US soil to two citizen parents
-> can be considered a Natural Born Citizen.

You keep saying that, but that's not the way US law works. I asked about the example where a child's father is not known or not acknowledged. I don't believe it would have any bearing AT ALL on the baby's citizenship status.

To me, "natural born citizen" means that the baby is a citizen from birth. Your argument against Obama (who WAS born in the State of Hawaii) hinges on there being a difference between "citizen from birth" and "natural born citizen".

You keep claiming that a child's citizenship path through his father is somehow "natural" or independent of law and custom. In fact, isn't paternity the LEAST reliable item of data on a birth certificate. If a birth is at a hospital, the mother's identity and the place of birth are matters of fact, attested to by the attending medical professionals. The father's identity is taken on faith, but can hardly be proven. That's why some religions--Judiasm certainly--recognize a child's identity through the MOTHER rather than the father. There's nothing inherently "natural", self-evident, or independent of law and culture about picking ONE of the child's two parents and claiming that citizenship derives from that one.

Maybe you need to stop getting your "facts" from FOX News?

[LizH]

Thanks, Jimmy, you've convinced me that the Republicans are just waiting for the time when they can 1) throw the country into a Constitutional crisis, 2) destroy the Democratic party, and take over the country as the autocracy they've always wanted. Yeah, that's the ticket.

[Ellen]

Re: "Only those born on US soil to two citizen parents can be considered a Natural Born Citizen."

Who told you that? It is wrong. That is the reason that the US Congress confirmed Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, because not one member in the 535 thought that the citizenship of Obama's father affects Obama's Natural Born Citizen status.

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

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

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

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

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

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

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

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

[Alex]

The best thing now for republicans is for Obama to stay in office. What a disaster of a president. How on earth is the wikileaks guy not in custody?

[Jimmy G]

---@LizH,

You must have misread what I said. I said any Republican would be a fool to want to get rid of Obama (at least before the next election). He is a godsend for us.

If he really were not a natural born citizen, I would create fake papers for him.

[Jara]

News Flash: "CRISIS" Averted. U.S. Supreme Court rejects this argument just a little while ago!

[LizH]

Jimmy, just like GWB was for the Dems. I suspect that by the next election, if the Republicans still obstruct just like Newt & friends did the last time, Obama will sail to re-election just like Bill Clinton did. Especially if Sarah Palin decides she is just the one to run against him!

[Kip]

Obama is a "disaster"? By this time in George Bush's presidency I seem to recall we'd experienced a catastrophic terrorist attack despite his administration being warned two months prior specifically about the threat posed by al Qaeda.

Sorry, I keep forgetting, Bush "kept us safe."

Don't worry, Republicans, if the American public is so hopelessly beleaguered as to think they'll get a better deal from the Republicans, you might just get the authoritarian plutocracy you so desperately want! Won't that be awesome?? This nation can become the Christian country the Founding Fathers so obviously wanted it to be. More upward wealth transfer from the middle class to the super-rich (so they can "create jobs" for us, of course)!

And maybe even another pointless war started by self-proclaimed hawks who never served their country (and questioned the patriotism of those who did).

Obama needs to magically solve the disaster caused by eight years of George Bush quick if he wants to keep his job!

[j meehan]

As to the renunciation of american citizenship, 'the straight dope' covered this topic some time ago, check the sd archives. Cecil is never wrong!