On January 26, 2012 a Georgia state judge will hold hearings on Barack Obama’s eligibility for president of the United States. WND reported the following:
Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argued that he should be exempted.
Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national. According to Article II Section I of the United States Constitution this man does not qualify as a “natural born citizen”. His presidency is an affront to natural law, which is the basis of our founding principles. Only one Supreme Court case addresses a “natural born citizen”:
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
“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.”
That being said, the Wong Kim Ark case does not confer natural born status to aliens born on American soil. And a Supreme Court ruling is not the same as a constitutional amendment.
Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
That case states:
“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.”
That being said, the Wong Kim Ark case does not confer natural born status to aliens born on American soil. And a Supreme Court ruling is not the same as a constitutional amendment.
Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/
25 comments:
The Minor vs. Happersett decision is NOT a ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
The court explicitly refused to decide whether a person born in the US without reference to the citizenship of the parents may be considered a natural born citizen.
This ruling does not support the claim that birth in the USA to one citizen-parent is not Natural Born Citizenship. It does not even support the claim that a child born in the USA to TWO foreign parents is not a Natural Born Citizen. It simply is not a ruling. It said that it was not going to rule.
To be sure, a person born in the USA to two US citizen parents IS a Natural Born Citizen. That is because she or he fulfills all the possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen. But, although the court said that it was never doubted that someone who fulfilled all the possible ways of being a Natural Born Citizen is a Natural Born Citizen, it never said that all the possible ways were required.
However, the Wong Kim Ark case, which followed the Minor vs. Happersett decision and hence would have overturned it (IF Minor was a decision, which it wasn’t), IS a decision. It ruled that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born (unless she or he is the child of foreign diplomats). What, then, is a Natural Born Citizen? A citizen who was Natural Born, of course. And according the the US Supreme Court in Wong (six to two, one not voting), the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth.
Thus all US citizens who were born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.
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
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
“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.
Obama received all 375 Electoral Votes that he won in the general election—despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers to have some of the electors change their votes. Not one of the 375 electors that Obama won thought that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. In addition, Obama was confirmed unanimously by the US Congress—despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers that tried to convince some members of Congress that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. And he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States. Not even one of the Obama electors thought that Minor vs Happersett was a precedent for two citizen parents. Not even one member of Congress thought it, and the Chief Justice of the USA did not think it, obviously, or he would not have sworn in Obama.
The Wong Kim Ark case is a perfect example of a rogue Supreme Court ruling. Those justices bastardized the 14th Amendment by conferring birth right citizenship to children of foreigners. The 14th Amendment was designed to ensure ex-slaves and their progeny were afforded equal protection under individual state laws. This ruling is an affront to natural law, and is the main cause of our illegal immigration problem. How can one confer citizenship to a child and not to his parents? This should be common sense.
However, Article II Section I of the Constitution states that a person must be a natural born citizen and Minor v. Happersett explicitly expressed that we must use the “nomenclature” of the framers:
“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.”
A rogue ruling by a Supreme Court doesn’t change the Constitution. If you want to allow children of foreigners to become president, than amend the Constitution.
Re: "If you want to allow children of foreigners to become president, than amend the Constitution."
There is no need to amend the Constitution. The children of foreigners are eligible currently. And in fact, six men in addition to Obama had foreign parents.
Seven US presidents had foreign parents, of which only two were under the provisions of the grandfather clause, Jefferson and Jackson (who had TWO foreign parents).
The others:
Buchanan
Chester A. Arthur
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
and Obama
Both Buchanan and Arthur had foreign fathers.
It is claimed that Arthur hid the fact that his father was born in Ireland and was not naturalized before Arthur was born. BUT there is no evidence that Arthur hid anything.
Same for Buchanan. Some birthers claim that Buchanan’s father must have been naturalized, but there is no evidence of that either.
Wilson and Hoover’s mothers were foreign citizens. They automatically became US citizens when they married their American husbands under a law that was in effect at the time.
But that is NOT the same thing as their being naturalized. Since they did not give up their foreign citizenships, they were still citizens of the countries that they were born in, and they did not have to swear an oath of allegiance to the USA, only marry an American.
Moreover, it is clear from the use of the term Natural Born Citizen at the time that the Constitution was written that it refers to citizenship due to the place of birth, the PLACE, not the parents.
Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution.
“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)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.
And here is how it was used in 1829:
“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:
"“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.”
It would be good if you ran the complete quotation.
"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
The key sentence, which you left out, is "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
That is saying "We are not making a decision." Why not? Because the issue of citizenship, and for that matter Natural Born Citizenship were not the issues of the case. It was a voting rights case. The court is merely saying the Virginia Minor, the defendant, was a US citizen in every possible way.
That is all. It is not a ruling. It is what lawyers call "dicta."
But they consider the argument in Wong Kim Ark to be crucial to the logic of the ruling, part of the ruling, and hence the law.
It is not a "rogue ruling." It was a strong majority of the court (six justices to two, one not voting), and it is THE LAW. AND it used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the way that Tucker did in 1803 and Rawle did in 1829, and the way that Blackstone did in his book on the common law.
THAT IS WHY the US Electoral College voted to elect Obama without a single member changing her or his vote, despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers to have some of them change their votes. That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election unanimously. That is why the Chief Justice of the USA swore him in.
“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….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Here is a brief account of the past presidents you brought into question:
James Buchanan, Jr., was born in a log cabin in Cove Gap (now James Buchanan Birthplace State Park), Franklin County, Pennsylvania, on April 23, 1791, to James Buchanan, Sr. (1761–1833), a well-to-do businessman, and Elizabeth Speer (1767–1833). His parents were both of Scots-Irish descent, the father having emigrated from Donegal, Ireland in 1783.
Both of his parents had become US Citizens and he was born in America.
Chester Arthur - At the time of the birth of the future president, Arthur's father was an Irish subject of the United Kingdom of Scottish descent, who naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1843.
Woodrow Wilson His paternal grandparents immigrated to the United States from Strabane, County Tyrone, Ireland (now Northern Ireland), in 1807. His mother was born in Carlisle, in England, the daughter of Rev. Dr. Thomas Woodrow, born in Paisley, Scotland and Marion Williamson from Glasgow.[4] His grandparents' whitewashed house has become a tourist attraction in Northern Ireland.[5]
Wilson circa 1880s. Wilson's parents moved South in 1851 and identified with the Confederacy.
Herbert Hoover Herbert Hoover’s mother became a citizen in 1870 under the same 1855 Congressional act that conferred citizenship on Wilson’s mother. Hoover was born in 1874 to two U.S. citizen parents and he is therefore a natural born citizen.
Barack Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.
"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).
For a better perspective, here is the full quote in which it pertains to those citizens born in states prior to the Constitution and how citizenship rights are extended to the federal government:
The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. 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.
Wong Kim Ark is a rogue ruling, because they took the 14th amendment out of context. They couldn’t have come to this decision otherwise.
But here is a lawyer’s take on the Minor and Wong Kim Ark case:
The Minor Court’s construction of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the United States Constitution was the independent ground by which the Court avoided construing the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
Therefore, such construction is precedent, not dicta, despite POTUS eligibility not being an issue. The Court determined it was necessary to define the class of natural-born citizens, and the definition is current legal precedent.
Had the Court in Wong Kim Ark identified him as a natural-born citizen, there would have been no need to construe the 14th Amendment, just as it wasn’t necessary to construe it to determine Virginia Minor’s citizenship. But Wong Kim Ark was not natural-born, and therefore the Court was required to construe the 14th Amendment to determine his citizenship status.
Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong.
The same is true for the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Minor v. Happersett. Had the court intended to say – Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents – then that is exactly what the US Supreme Court would have said. But they didn’t.
And the same can be said for the framers of the 14th Amendment. Had they intended to include the words “natural-born citizen” in the Amendment, then that is exactly what they would have done. But they didn’t. Any attempt to read those words into the 14th Amendment would render Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, to be superfluous. And that goes directly against our entire body of national jurisprudence on the issue of statutory construction.
I will more thoroughly address the issue of statutory construction in the days ahead. (Since the state of Georgia will be hearing this issue on Jan. 26, 2012, I have decided to come forward with everything I have now, rather than waiting to publish my book.)
Leo Donofrio, Esq.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
Re: Both of his parents had become US Citizens and he was born in America.
Who found the proof of naturalization??
I understand that it has never been found, that there is no proof at all that his father was naturalized.
And there is no proof that Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father had not been naturalized. Maybe lots of people knew.
Wilson's mother and Hoover's mother became US citizens due to their marriages, not because they swore oaths of allegiance or gave up their foreign citizenship.
And, most important of all, the meaning of Natural Born in the USA at the time that the Constitution was written referred to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth.
Re: "Again, had Justice Gray’s opinion intended to state that Ark was natural-born, there would be a sentence in Gray’s opinion stating, Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen. But there isn’t. No amount of tongue twisting can insert those words where they do not exist and do not belong."
That is an absurd statement. Wong Kim Ark was not running for president. The issue was whether or not he was a US citizen.
Moreover, although it was unnecessary to state that Wong Kim Ark was a Natural Born Citizen, in fact the court did say that he was a Natural Born Citizen. How so?
Remember logic? Remember syllogisms?
If ALL men are mortal, and George is a man, then George is mortal.
If EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born, and Wong was born in the USA and his parents were not foreign diplomats, then Wong is Natural Born. And, since the court also stated that he is a US citizen, he is both Natural Born and a citizen----a Natural Born Citizen.
That was ALSO the way that the term was used when the US Constitution was written, as the examples of Tucker and Rawle show:
“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)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.
And here is how it was used in 1829:
“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: "Wong Kim Ark is a rogue ruling.."
It was decided by six justices to two (one not voting) and hence it is the law. And there was nothing rogue about it. It said exactly the same thing as what Rawle said in 1829:
"“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)
And that is exactly the same thing as what Blackstone 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/
As a result, such conservative legal authorities as Edwin Meese have accepted that Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And one state appeals court has ruled the same thing:
“Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”--- Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)
You have taken Rawles comments out context, which I have shown in a previous post. And without a doubt you probably did the same with the others.
You are now making assertions that are flat out false. If birth right citizenship were as cut and dry as you say, Wong Kim Ark would never have become a federal issue.
Our founding fathers believed in natural law and I'm sure you're well aware of Vattel, who the framers referenced on many occassions.
Do you not think it odd that a natural born citizen is constitutionally required for the executive office and none other. Why do you think that is?
The writers of the US Constitution used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the English common law, not the way that it was used in Vattel. The common law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, while Vattel was not mentioned at all.
So, what did the common law say?
Blackstone 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.)
And was that the way that the phrase Natural Born was used in America too? Yes. How do we know? Because we cannot find a single American leader who used the phrase the way that Vattel did, and many used it the way that Blackstone did, referring to the place of birth–not the parents.
Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:
“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)
As you can see, that refers only to the place of birth, not to the parents.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, the US Senator who wrote the citizenship section of the 14th Amendment, said this some years after the debate:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
Notice how similar “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together” is to what Blackstone wrote. Notice: “it is the common law of this country as well as of England.”
The Wong Kim Ark case is not an issue. It is the law of the United States, and it ruled (six to two, one justice not voting) that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is NATURAL BORN.
"Do you not think it odd that a natural born citizen is constitutionally required for the executive office and none other. Why do you think that is?"
Because the writers of the Constitution did not want a naturalized citizen. They wanted a Natural Born citizen, which under the common law meant someone who was born in the country.
RE: "Do you not think it odd that a natural born citizen is constitutionally required for the executive office and none other. Why do you think that is?"
Your answer: Because the writers of the Constitution did not want a naturalized citizen. They wanted a Natural Born citizen, which under the common law meant someone who was born in the country.
Apparently, you haven’t read Article One Section Eight where it gives Congress the authority “To establish an uniform rule of naturalization”
Your answer is lame. You obviously are making things up as you go along. Again, I ask why does the Constitution specifically require a “Natural Born Citizen” for the executive office; yet doesn’t require this status on any other office?
Try again.
RE: The writers of the US Constitution used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the English common law, not the way that it was used in Vattel. The common law is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, while Vattel was not mentioned at all.
So, what did the common law say?
Blackstone 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.)
And was that the way that the phrase Natural Born was used in America too? Yes. How do we know? Because we cannot find a single American leader who used the phrase the way that Vattel did, and many used it the way that Blackstone did, referring to the place of birth–not the parents.
George Mason, a founding father and framer of the Constitution, stated that the common law of England is not the common law of the United States. You might recall that we had a war for independence.
And as to your assertion of no leader referencing Vattel:
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))
Bingham had asserted the same thing in 1862 as well:
Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert. (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862))
Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters the allegiance of anyone but only an act of the person acting per written law can alter the allegiance owed
Your assertion that not one founding father looked to Vattel is erroneous:
Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other," Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law.
In fact, founder and highly respected historian, David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen, defined the original citizens and while not using the term nevertheless provided a Founding period contemporaneous definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as well and in so doing relied upon a definition of an original “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” as given by Vattel and not upon one provided by the English common law or Blackstone (both of which defined a “natural born subject” and not a “natural born Citizen” and did not distinguish between a “subject” and a “natural born subject”). Additionally, Rep. William Smith during the 1789 Congressional hearings on whether he was a “citizen of the United States” of seven years (not to be confused with an Article II “natural born Citizen”) which status he needed under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 to be eligible to sit as a member of the House of Representatives, cited Vattel and espoused and relied upon his definition of a “citizen” and not upon that provided by the English common law or Blackstone to define citizenship in the United States and as authority to prove that he was a “citizen of the United States” of seven years.
The Founders and Framers relied upon Cicero, Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke, and Emer de Vattel (to name a few) in identifying and describing natural law and the law of nations. But they mostly looked to Emer de Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (original French in 1758 and first English in 1759, and other subsequent French and English editions for not only authority on the meaning of natural law and the law of nations but also in constituting the new Constitutional Republic and in writing the new Constitution. The 1759 (aka 1760) edition was published in London in English. An explanation of the various editions is provided by Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 (A. Matthews ed. 1920).
Re:
"But they mostly looked to Emer de Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature.."
So, why didn't they say "Natural Born, as Vattel defined it." Or why didn't they say "Natural Born, but we don't mean the common law definition?" Why wasn't Vattel mentioned in the Federalist Papers?
Why didn't any of the framers ever write that they did not care for Blackstone, but preferred to base the Constitution on the writings of natural law philosophers---why, by the way, all disagreed with each other?
Why didn't they adopt VATTEL's recommendation that every country should have a state religion?
And, by the way, the words "Natural Born Citizen" did not appear in any English translation of Vattel until TEN years after the Constitution was written. And, by the way, Vattel himself says in his book that in England citizenship has nothing to do with the parents, people born in England are citizens at birth. That is what Vattel says.
Ramsay, by the way, was not defining Natural Born. He thought that to be a citizen required two citizen parents. In other words, he was giving his definition of citizen, not his definition of the well-known term Natural Born.
At the time that the Constitution was written, everyone knew the term Natural Born referred to the PLACE of birth.
Tucker did not get the meaning of Natural Born wrong:
“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)
Nor did Meese:
“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….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Re: "The 1759 (aka 1760) edition was published in London in English."
That edition said that something called an "indigines" had two citizen parents. It did not say that a Natural Born Citizen had citizen parents.
And, guess what? Vattel never says that he recommends that the head of the state, or the head of the army, or anyone in government should be an "indigines" or a Natural Born Citizen, or even a citizen. He makes no such recommendation. Neither does any other natural law philosopher.
Vattel in particular ignores citizenship requirements in government. He lists several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries (even countries that speak different languages), and he never says that that is a bad thing. Neither does any other natural law philosopher.
The most important thing, however, is that there is no proof that the framers followed Vattel and not Blackstone, and Blackstone is FAR more likely because they were LAWYERS.
John Jay, for example, was a lawyer and a justice who had been the main writer of the 1777 Constitution of the State of New York. And that constitution actually adopted the English common law as the law of New York unless and until the state wrote its own laws on the matter. This is the man who wrote to Washington about the need for a Natural Born Citizen. We know that he was a specialist in the common law. We do not know to what extent he was interested in Vattel.
In any case, there are no writings from Adams or Hamilton or Madison or even Ramsay that says that "Natural Born" refers to the parents.
As was stated in the previous comment, the founders and framers all read the same authors, and that includes Vattel. Maybe that’s why you can’t find a reference of Vattel. However there were many more writings than just the “Federalist”. You also have the “Anti-Federalist” and other American political writing from the founding era.
RE: Tucker did not get the meaning of Natural Born wrong
“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)
I agree Tucker didn’t get it wrong. Here is a better quote:
The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. …The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.
To grant birth right citizenship to someone born of foreign parents on American soil would incur duel citizenship, and would that not conflict with Tuckers definition of foreign influence? I would say it did.
As for John Jay:
John Jay’s letter to Washington address this dual and permanent loyalty to England that Blackstone introduces. To George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well.
What further discredits Blackstone as being the author of the Natural Born Citizen clause, is the first immigration act passed by our First Congress in 1790. In chapter III we find direct references to Vattel’s assertion that citizenship is derived from the father, in that citizenship was prohibited to children whose fathers have never gave intent to permanently reside of the Untied States. Interestingly in this same act, we also find the clarification of a Natural Born Citizen, as being one “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident in the United States:” Residency was defined in that same act as someone under oath declaring that they wished to remain and live in the Untied States. It should be noted that the Supreme Court was tasked with defining several phrases in this law, and since Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and had reviewed the immigration law of 1790. If Jay was in favor of Blackstone’s definition, he remained silent.
To add further proof to the intent of the Founding Fathers literal meaning of Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen being born of two citizens, and in the country itself, and wanting a natural born citizen having no other claim to his loyalty except that of the United States of America, in 1795 the Congress amended the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Naturalization Act of 1795, which was also signed by George Washington, recognized Blackstone’s commentaries on English Common Law, making children born overseas in the lands under British rule, British Subjects. Even if their parents were American. This act removed the words natural born from children born overseas of American parents, so that no other potentate could lay claim to this person, and thus establish “a presence of influence” in the Executive Branch. It was the intent of our Founding Fathers to “naturalize at birth” these children, but not give them the status “natural born citizens.” Also in this act of 1795, we see the importance of complete allegiance to the United States for all people naturalized, as this is the first appearance of the oath of allegiance “to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.” This oath is still in effect today.
The first Naturalization law ADDED a definition to the existing definition. It ruled that the childen of US citizens who were abroad at the time were ALSO Natural Born Citizens.
WHAT was the existing fgroup of Natural Born Citizens to whom the children of US parents who were abroad at the time were added? The children who were born in the USA regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
Jamese Madison said that there was only one criterion of allegiance in the USA, and it was not the parents. The one criterion, the sole criterion of the USA, is the PLACE OF BIRTH.
"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."
YOUR quotation of Tucker that said that the US president must be native born is accurate. All native born US citizen are Natural Born US citizens. That is why he said it, and others have too.
John Bouvier, Daniel Angell Gleason - 1871
"Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution uf the United States, except the offices of president and vice-president."
...books.google.com -
Smith's hand-book for travellers through the United States of ... - Page 13 John Calvin Smith - 1856 - 275 pages
"No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native- born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, "...books.google.com
In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "there is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".[25] In April 2010, Solum republished the same article as an online draft, in which he changed his opinion on the meaning of natural born citizen to include persons born in the United States of one American citizen parent. In a footnote he explained that "based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen'." He further extended natural born citizenship to all cases of jus soli as the "conventional view".[26] Although Professor Solum stated elsewhere that the two-citizen-parents arguments "weren't crazy", he believes "the much stronger argument suggests that if you were born on American soil that you would be considered a natural born citizen."[27]
Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University, stated, "There's some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That's never been the law."[28] Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University, added, "It's a little confusing, but most scholars think it's a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the [United States]."[27]
Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found "quite persuasive" the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled "that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate's parents is irrelevant.
Other examples of the use of Native born:
William D'Arcy Haley - 1861 - 239 pages
"He must be a native-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and must have attained the age of thirty -five years ;books.google.com - More editions
Abridged history of the United States: or, Republic of America - Page 254 Emma Willard - 1847 - 336 pages - Full view
"The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term of four years ; each to be a native born citizen, and to have attained the age of thirty-five. ...books.google.com - More editions
American facts: Notes and statistics relative to the government, ... - Page 44
George Palmer Putnam - 1845 - 292 pages - Full view
"No person is eligible to the office who is less than thirty-five years of age, and is not a native-born citizen of the United States. The Vice-President is chosen at the same time, in the same way....books.google.com - More editions
As late as World War I the meaning of Natural Born was widely understood. In that war, American men who registered for the draft were asked whether or not they were US Citizens. Then, if they were, they were asked whether they were naturalized citizens or natural born citizens. There were only two categories, naturalized and natural born. If Natural Born had referred to the parents (one or two of them), there would have had to have been at least three criteria: naturalized, native born to foreign parents, and Natural Born. But there were only two possibilities, meaning that Natural Born must refer to citizenship at birth, mainly due to the PLACE of birth.
A few more authorities, whom I may have cited earlier:
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
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
“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.
Obama received all 375 Electoral Votes that he won in the general election—despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers to have some of the electors change their votes. Not one of the 375 electors that Obama won thought that he was not a Natural Born Citizen. In addition, Obama was confirmed unanimously by the US Congress—despite a campaign by birthers and two-fers that tried to convince some members of Congress that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen. And he was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States. Not even one of the Obama electors thought that Minor vs Happersett was a precedent for two citizen parents. Not even one member of Congress thought it, and the Chief Justice of the USA did not think it, obviously, or he would not have sworn in Obama.
This meaning of Natural Born Citizen has been followed in dozens of federal court cases. For example:
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.”
The parents are both Romanian, the children are Natural Born Citizens.” What makes them Natural Born Citizens? Their birth in the USA.
And:
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.”
You have taken quotes out of context. Now, your are repeating yourself. And to top it off you are quoting RINO's.
If you wish to continue to post comments, please do so. I have other subjects of interest.
Re: "Jay writes “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Jay not only knew of Vattel, , as can be seen from his correspondence with James Madison in 1780 during treaty negotiations with Spain, but he was also a proponent of Vattel as well."
John Jay said that he did not want foreigners. He did not say that he was against the US-born children of foreigners. And he did not say "Natural Born, as used by Vattel." (He couldn't, no translation of Vattel used the words Natural Born until ten years later.)
Since he did not say "two citizen parents" and he did not say "as in Vattel" and he was a specialist in the common law (having written it into the first Constitution of the state of New York), it is obvious that he was referring to the meaning of Natural Born in the common law. That was also the common use of the term, as the Tucker and Rawle quotations show.
There is not a shred of evidence that John Jay meant two citizen parents.
Before the issue of natural born citizen can be considered one needs to understand that since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment there are two citizens in the country of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under Section 1, Clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. This can be seen in the following:
"Two Distinct State Citizens For Purposes Of Diversity Of Citizenship"
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=b6862bd9-e7a4-4215-bf24-881db524e76f
"Diversity of Citizenship: The Basics"
http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=76d8e5c8-ac03-4a26-91ac-f32701cd3eef
Next and last, that a citizen of a State who is not a citizen of the United State, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States was before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and still is after its adoption, a natural born citizen:
(Before the Fourteenth Amendment)
“It appears that the plaintiff in error, though a native-born citizen of Louisiana, was married in the State of Mississippi, while under age, with the consent of her guardian, to a citizen of the latter State, and that their domicile, during the duration of their marriage, was in Mississippi.” Conner v. Elliott: 59 U.S. (Howard 18) 591, at 592 (1855).
http://books.google.com/books?id=RkcFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA592#v=onepage&q&f=false
(After the Fourteenth Amendment)
“Joseph A. Iasigi, a native born citizen of Massachusetts, was arrested, February 14, 1897, on a warrant issued by one of the city magistrates of the city of New York, as a fugitive from the justice of the State of Massachusetts.” Iasigi v. Van De Carr: 166 U.S. 391, at 392 (1897).
http://books.google.com/books?id=xuUGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA392#v=onepage&q&f=false
Post a Comment