Who is a natural born citizen? Before late 2008 there was not much discussion of this question except in some obscure legal articles and talk about a few candidates not born on US soil like Mitt Romney's father (born in Mexico) and John McCain (born in the Canal Zone). Recently, many of those known as the "Birthers" started telling us that almost everything we learned about this term for 200 years is wrong. In 2008 during the run up to the election all the conversation was about "the birth certificate" but now the debate has moved to the claim that to be a natural born citizen requires both parents to be citizens at the time of birth. Even some politicians in New Hampshire and in Georgia have embraced the idea. What gives? I say let's get this settled.
I challenge proponents of both sides of the discussion on the definition of the term "natural born citizen" in the United States Constitution under the requirements for president and vice president to a debate on Reality Check Radio on Wednesday, January 25, 2012. I have arranged for up to three supporters of the traditional definition that a US citizen at birth is a natural born citizen to represent the "Obot" side of the debate. I challenge the "Birther" side to provide up to three proponents to take on the challenge.
The debate will be 90 minutes long and both sides will have equal time. Timing will be strictly enforced. Each side will be given equal time for opening and closing arguments. Each side will be able to ask the other side 4 questions of their choice and have time for rebuttal to the answers. The moderator (me) will ask 1 or 2 questions if issues appear to need further discussion. The remainder of the show will allow the listeners to call and ask questions.
I extend this challenge to Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Charles Kerchner, Orly Taitz, Dean Haskins, Jerome Corsi, or any other proponent of the "two citizen parent" definition of natural born citizen. This is your chance to prove you are right. The first three who accept will be selected as participants unless they wish to give up a spot to someone prior to the debate.
I will enforce a fair debate. If you are interested please contact me at realitycheck1776 at gmail period com or through the "Contact Me" link on rcradioshow.blogspot.com
Please feel free to link or copy this article to your blog or forum to get the word out. A refusal by either side to defend their position will be noted.
I doubt anyone will accept the challenge RC. Of course, birthers will openly accept a challenge on a court trial where the stakes are much better; Obama is to found to be ineligible. This debate offers very little to birthers. There is no monetary profit. As Orly had pointed in a recent post, this get together will not play in anyway of keeping Obama off the ballot in a state or having him found ineligible in court. It also provides Obots, especially Fogbow, to present distortions of facts.
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying that the Birthers are really only concerned about money and embarrassing Obama and not about the facts? Surely not.
ReplyDelete> birthers will openly accept a challenge on a court trial where the stakes are much better
ReplyDeleteThe stakes are much better? What planet are you from? The birthers have failed in every court case they've pushed into the system. So you're basically saying birthers only care when there is money to be had and gullible saps to grift? You've pretty much summed up the entire birther movement in that this isn't about eligibility but rather how much money you can fleece out of people. So far the only ones distorting information are the birthers.
This debate will happen even if one side chooses not to participate. I will play the part of a Vattelist if I have to do so. If they do not want me to be their voice they better accept the challenge.
ReplyDeleteI can do a good Birther Asshole - I just watched my ex-sister in law go off the cliff with the rest of the Northern Cali Lemmings. I see how it goes. I watched her almost go down for the count. A bit of Haldol pulled her out just in time.
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2 Parts
ReplyDeleteDr. Ken, this is no "distortion" it is clear fact that ........
The US Supreme Court defined in Minor v Happersett, that a "natural born citizen" was one who is born in US of US citizen parents and in the very same paragraph SCOTUS stated that there were doubts as to whether a child born in US to alien parents was even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen'.
Did you know this about the 14th Amendment?
In 1927 the US Supreme Court agreed with the SCOTUS doubts about citizenship of children born in US to alien parents as were expressed by the judiciary in Minor v Happersett, and SCOTUS went further to confirm that there was in fact no more doubt that those children born in US to (non-US citizen) alien parents were NOT "citizens of the United States".
U.S. Supreme Court
Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927)
"By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited.
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.
The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The evident meaning of these last words is NOT MERELY SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECT OR DEGREE to the jurisdiction of the United States, BUT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THEIR POLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE."
see part 2
Part 2 of 2 Parts
ReplyDeleteFurthermore regarding the SCOTUS reference to English common law in the Wong Kim Ark case, where Calvin's case was cited, the notion that a child born in the land to an alien was a "natural born subject" was observed, it can bee seen from a reading of Calvin's case, that this notion of alien parent + child born in the land = "natural born" was cherry-picked, omitting crucial elements in the case.
i.e. that the alien parent, visiting England was in fact considered a "subject", and if this alien parent was NOT a "subject" then his child can NOT be a "subject".
Quote from Calvin's case:
"that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT..."
And we have this from the same Calvin's case that was cited by SCOTUS in WKA case, which shows the TWO ESSENTIAL qualities REQUIRED to make a "natural born"
"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right...."
"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered...."
As anyone can see, the "subject" status of the parent father was an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT in determining a "natural born".
None of this was even mentioned in the Wonk Kim Ark case and consequently the FALSE belief that alien + child born in the land = "natural born" was set in motion.
Ergo: According to English common law AND the Supreme Court of the United States AND the framers of the Constitution of the US (who were PROFOUNDLY influenced by Vattel, diligently and with great wisdom CHOSE the term "natural born" RATHER THAN "native born" in their imperative and duty to secure and protect the highest office of president and commander in chief, from ANY foreign influence and claim.
The notion that the framers intended the term "natural" to mean "native" is ABSURD.
Dr Ken ............. can you point-out any "distorting information" in all this?
Here is a highly comprehensive report that discussed “Natural Born Citizen”
ReplyDeletehttp://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Copyright (©) 2009-2011 Stephen Tonchen
So are you volunteering to participate in the debate MichaelN?
ReplyDeleteI'm not in US of A, and I am not experienced in oral 'debate' i.e. as in a formal debate.
ReplyDeleteI will be happy to debate & discuss here in writing, if that's ok with you.
I have yet to see anyone rebut the facts I have presented here and provide any sound evidence that would make it reasonable to believe a) the framers of the Constitution of US intended "natural" to mean "native" (i.e."native" as meaning born in the land) & b)that the SCOTUS has held or ruled that "natural born citizen" (as per and in the context of USC Article II) means anything other than born in US AND to US citizen parents.
Oh MichaelN, stop lying and claiming you haven't been rebutted and utterly debunked.
ReplyDeleteYou've had your ass soundly handed to you every time you've tried to pull this Calvin argument nonsense over at Dr. Conspiracy's blog.
TIP to readers here about MichaelN - he deliberately MISQUOTES and intentionally leaves OUT key passages of the texts he cites, hoping he won't get caught. Turns out that the full context NEVER says what he claims it does. Often the sections of words he leaves out (or changes) run counter to his argument and debunk his very own claims.
But don't worry, MichaelN is a shameless repeat offender. Call him out on it or challenge him to defend his intentional "ommisions" and he'll simply pretend he never heard you and pull the typical tactic of trying to change the subject or move the goalposts and hope you won't notice.
Eventually, he'll just slink off and then reappear a few weeks later and make the same long refuted claims as before and claim again with a straight face that no one ever reubts him...
MichaelN, you are one of the most pathetic pathological liars out there. Find a new trick. We've seen this same zombie dead horse of yours too many times already...
He is a pathological liar that ignores honest debate
MichaelN, I will try to explain this so even YOU can understand this...
ReplyDeleteHere is the full sentence:
“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”
This is the part that you conveniently leave out when you spam us:
"for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there,"
Try to follow;
Leaving aside, for the moment, your bullsh*t "two-citizen parent" theory, most experts will tell you that a child born in the United States is a natural-born citizen, with the following exceptions:
1. A child born to a diplomat.
2. A child born to an invading soldier.
Are you with me so far?
Now, reading the full sentence, it is clear the subject being discussed is an invading soldier. How do I know? The clue is the part that you always leave out: "for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort,"
What the Full sentence does, is describe a situation (number 2, above) in which it is universally acknowledged where a child, although born here, is NOT considered a natural born citizen. Why? Because an exception is made for the children of invading soldiers.
You are repeatedly claiming that you found a case of a child simply being born here, and not being a natural born citizen: "that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”
What you are not letting the reader know, by cutting off that first part, is that you have found a situation where the child, although born here, is not considered natural born because it is from one of the two exceptions to the natural born rule.
You know, this part:“for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort,"
To try and dumb it down further:
1- There are two exceptions to being natural born.
2- You found a case that describes one of the two exceptions.
3- You obscure that the case is referring to one of the two exceptions.
4- You believe it proves your point. It doesn't. It proves you found a case describing one of the known exceptions, as well as you are dishonest.
@Obsolete.. who said .
ReplyDelete"it is universally acknowledged where a child, although born here, is NOT considered a natural born citizen. Why? Because an exception is made for the children of invading soldiers."
That's correct, the invading soldier is NOT A SUBJECT, so his kid can't be a "subject", because of that.
What difference does it make as to WHY the parent father is not a "subject"?
Answer this!
The FACT that the parent father was not a "subject", is the very reason his child can not be a "subject" even if born in the land.
It makes no difference why the parent father is or is not a "subject".
---------------------------
@ G
Save your pathetic desperate insults and ad hominem.
They are getting somewhat tired and worn-out; they won't work with me.
Obviously YOU can't rebut the FACTS that I have presented, so all you have is the usual mantra of a blow-hard belching hot-air.
NONE of your 'experts' have been able to rebut the facts and truth that I have presented, all they have done is much like you have done, i.e. whine, squirm and moan and desperately hurl disgusting insults, attacking the messenger feverishly attempting to evade the real topic.
In other words buzz-off if you aren't capable of discussing and debating the topic at hand in a reasonable and mature manner.
.
@ MichaelN
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not want to rehash the points you have brought up many times on multiple forums that have been thoroughly discredited. The terms "native born" and "natural born" have the same meaning and have been used for hundreds of years interchangeably. If you are arguing that as a general rule children of aliens born on US soil are not citizens then you are just completely silly.
If you are not offering to debate on my show then please take it somewhere else.
I don't see any of the others here offering to debate on your show, have you asked them to take it somewhere else?
ReplyDeleteFuthermore I haven't been thoroughly discredited at all, NONE of the so called experts have been able to rebut the facts that I have brought forward, best they have is ad hominem and attempts to ridicule, this is the default mantra "you have been discredited" and the like, when it's not true, saying this is just a convenient way to dodge the argument....... you are running scared.
Reality Check said ......
ReplyDelete"The terms "native born" and "natural born" have the same meaning and have been used for hundreds of years interchangeably."
These terms have been used on SOME occasions interchangeably.
The usage of the terms "native" and "natural" in the US Supreme Courts has been MOSTLY for "natural born" to mean born to US citizen parents and in the US per the SCOTUS holding in Minor v Happersett.
Check for yourself, go to Justia.com ,Supreme Court database, and search "native" and "natural" and you will see that what I am saying is true.
In most if not every SCOTUS case where the word "native" is used, it refers to a person born in the land, but the usage of the word "natural" to describe a person born in the land is non-existent.
Had the framers intended, in Article II, that a "natural born Citizen" was to to mean a "native", they would have said so, and so too would the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett, and so too the jurists in Weedin v. Chin Bow (1927)would not have said this (following) if they believed that what you say is true .....
"The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.
The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The evident meaning of these last words is NOT MERELY SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECT OR DEGREE to the jurisdiction of the United States, BUT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THEIR POLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE."
This holding in Weedin v Chin Bow CLEARLY says that "native" born is NOT SUFFICIENT to make an
ordinary "citizen" of the US let alone an Article "natural born Citizen.
You are wrong about "native" and "natural", but afraid to admit it, the same as all the others who have been unable to rebut the facts that I have presented, so obviously your next step, when you can't or refuse to face the truth, is to ban me from discussion here ......... isn't it?
You are proposing to stifle free-speech?
.
"Had the framers intended, in Article II, that a "natural born Citizen" was to to mean a "native", they would have said so,"
ReplyDeleteYou are making that up. You do not know that.
As you said there are only two types of citizens. That is clear. Native or natural born and naturalized. The is no third class of citizenship. It exists in your mind. There is no such thing as a "naturalized at birth" citizen. Unless you can cite a law creating such a class of citizen you have lost.
You do not understand free speech either. You are free to start your own blog. I own this blog. I may or may not choose to delete any comment I wish. For now I will not delete anything. You are the one who brought your previously discredited arguments here. Others only responded.
RC: From what I've seen recently, there does actually appear to be a distinction between "native born" and "natural born."
ReplyDelete"Natural born" includes "native born."
A person who is "native born" would therefore also necessarily be "natural born."
But the reverse may not be true. There are those (including the 3 oldest of my own children) who are NOT "native born" US citizens -- but who ARE, nonetheless, "natural born" US citizens.
These 3 were born, not on US soil but on the soil of the United Kingdom -- of two US citizen parents residing temporarily in the UK.
And they are all, to my understanding and belief, "natural born" US citizens, eligible to run for President upon reaching the age of 35 years and residency requirements.
Our youngest are both "natural born" AND "native born." The oldest are only "natural born."
But any one of them could, if they someday chose, run for President of the United States.
To clarify what I meant by the statement "'natural born' includes 'native born'":
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant is that "natural born" is the superset. "Native born" persons are one type of "natural born" persons, but they are not the ONLY type -- since persons born abroad of US citizen parents are "natural born" as well.
Ah good old Michaelin the foreigner who claims to know our laws better than the courts. Who also willfully has distorted Calvin's case repeatedly while lying about quotes from it.
ReplyDeleteThe US did no such thing in Minor V Happersett. Since it was a voting rights case and not a citizenship case the statement was dicta. They did not say "The definition is such and such" they simply said that there are no doubts that those born in the us of citizen parents are natural born citizens. They also said for the purpose of the case they weren't going to address it.
As usual Michael you distort cases. Obama by no scope of the imagination owed any allegiance to any other country but the US
John
ReplyDeleteFor that small subset of natural born citizens born abroad you may have a point that natural born might be more technically correct than native born. However, this is getting into the realm of picking nits. I would not be surprised that those citizens still consider themselves "native born". I think the term "natural born" does more correctly capture the important concept of time rather than place that citizenship is obtained.
The small subset of citizens born abroad are the only group about which questions have ever been raised about eligibility for the presidency in serious legal circles. I think the articles on this subject make the case that citizens born from parent or parents are made citizens by statute and those laws have changed over time. Most still conclude that those born abroad to one or to US citizens are still natural born citizens. Native born citizens (by your definition) are made so by the Constitution.
Patrick Colliano made an interest point on the show last week that Barack Obama would have been a citizen from birth even had he been born abroad based on the citizenship laws passed after his birth that changed the age and residency requirements for the citizen parent. That law was made retroactive. So we may even have a smaller subset of retroactive natural born citizens in population. Obama of course was born in Hawaii so this discussion is academic for now.
Reality check is right, Mikey is again wrong. The only court that ever specifically defined "native born citizen" was Wong Kim Ark where it said anyone who satisfied the definition of natural born subject was a native born citizen (i.e., everyone born in the US other than children of ambassadors). This was about 15 pages after Gray repeatedly told us "natural born citizen" meant the same thing as "natural born subject." Thus, they clearly mean the same thing and neither of these definition are dicta. After WKA, the court has used native born, native citizen and citizen by birth in the place of natural born. All mean the same thing. For example:
ReplyDelete“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)
"Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens." United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)
“Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency” Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665, 673 (1944)(quoting Luria v. United States").
"The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born (Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22); but he acquires no more." United States v. Macintosh, 283 US 605, 624 (1931).
"Citizenship obtained through naturalization is not a second-class citizenship. It has been said that citizenship carries with it all of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship obtained by birth in this country "save that of eligibility to the Presidency." Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 658 (1946)
"This holding in Weedin v Chin Bow CLEARLY says that "native" born is NOT SUFFICIENT to make an
ReplyDeleteordinary "citizen" of the US let alone an Article "natural born Citizen."
Weedin says no such thing. Its holding relates solely to interpetation of naturalization statutes. You are citing Elk v. Wilkins, not Weedin. Elk v. Wilkins was written by Justice Gray and is entirely consistent with his later WKA. In Elk he was talking about Indians who were deemed to be born in a quasi-foreign nation and hence owed a foreign allegiance though born on our land. The framers of the Amendment said the same thing over and over. Elk said nothing about children of aliens other than Gray equated such indians with aliens born in a foreign country, not aliens born in the US. Gray and the framers both tell us persons born in the US owe allegiance to the US, not any foreign nation, except in a few rare exceptions like children of ambassadors or Indians born in a quasi-foreign nation. Neither Gray nor such framers suggested children of aliens owed a foreign allegiance or didn’t owe their full political allegiance to the United States. If you want to know tha law on children of aliens I suggest you read the case that deal with such issue.
"For that small subset of natural born citizens born abroad you may have a point that natural born might be more technically correct than native born. However, this is getting into the realm of picking nits. I would not be surprised that those citizens still consider themselves "native born"."
ReplyDeleteYeah, there are a few authorities that I can't remember right now that include such foreign born citizens under the definition of "native born." The English conflated "native" and "natural born" as well. "Native" seemed more of the casual term as it applied to the vast majority of subjects, while "natural born" was the official term that presumably included a broader group. Even under the English common law some foreign born persons were natural born (i.e., children of ambassadors or the sovereign) and foreign born statutory subjects were also generally called natural born. Despite this from English law, there is almost no early American authority suggesting the foreign born could be natural born though it is the position of most scholars today. A problem with this theory is that, since Wong Kim Ark, the Court has said over and over that a foreign born person can only become a citizen by statute. Such is why McCain's case interested actual scholars.
Upon reflection I will allow any comments to remain here as long as they are within the wide definition of being civil.
ReplyDeleteFolks who deliberately misquote and misread sources are an anathema to civil discussion. They waste everyone's time by forcing the reader to check everything they say and every source they cite. Some have honed this form of deception to a fine art.
I am glad someone of the stature of ballantine agreed with my statement on "native-born". "Natural-born" is probably the preferred term to describe those to whom citizenship was conferred at the moment of birth versus "naturalized", which implies a willful act to obtain the rights of citizenship via statute.
In the following, how come Justice Douglas did not use the term "natural born" rather than "native born", given that he made use of the term "NATURAL born" in the VERY SAME PARAGRAPH???
ReplyDeleteQuote:
U.S. Supreme Court
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
“We start,” Justice Douglas wrote for the Court, “from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.
The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘NATURAL born’ citizen is eligible to be President."
Did you read the entire decision? Why do you think Douglas put the quotes around "natural"? He did that because he is noting that the word was used literally in the Constitution but that it meant the same thing as native born. I do not see how anyone could read the entire decision and come to any other conclusion than that Douglas thinks native born and natural born are equivalent. He makes it clear there are two types of citizenship and the only difference is that one is eligible to run for president and the other is not.
ReplyDeleteYou are so biased that your reading comprehension skill has been greatly diminished.
Yes, but even taken in isolation, Douglas does not say native and natural born mean different things. Mikey is suggesting that such is the implication of using both terms. However, it is perfectly reasonable to read this provision as equating the two terms particularly in light that the Court had equated such terms for more than a century including in holding. If the Court wanted to tell us it was departing from its century old position, it would actually say so, not leave it to implication. But this is the problem with all the birthers argument. No Court actually supports their theory so all they are left with is looking between the lines of ambiguous dicta for some unstated implication. Such arguments have no place in legal interpretation and are not tolerated by Courts. In fact, it is a good way to face santions.
ReplyDeleteSorry, it is simply a fact that the Court has repeatedly equated native and natural born and no case, including Rusk, ever said they are different.
Part 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteReality Check said...
"Did you read the entire decision? Why do you think Douglas put the quotes around "natural"? He did that because he is noting that the word was used literally in the Constitution but that it meant the same thing as native born."
The POINT IS, that if it were as the pundits for jus soli only, say, i.e. that the word "nature" was preferred & used most commonly to mean or infer "native", then why did Douglas say "native-born" instead of "natural-born" ????...
Here's Douglas' speech
"from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the NATIVE-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive......"
Shouldn't Douglas have used "natural" if he believed that all who were native-born were actually referred to as "natural born" and that this was also the case with the eligibility clause of USC Article II?
Reality Check said .....
"I am glad someone of the stature of ballantine agreed with my statement on "native-born". "Natural-born" is probably the preferred term to describe those to whom citizenship was conferred at the moment of birth...."
The naturalization Act of 1790 says it all, when it said:
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
And THE CHILDREN of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, SHALL also be considered as CITIZENS of the United States.
[MY COMMENT: How come the child was not called a "natural born"?????
But the children of citizens parents ARE CALLED NATURAL BORN!!!!!]
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 resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."
Like I have said time and time again, but because of your political bias, you fail to grasp the truth.
Your whole argument is based on the ABSURDITY that the framers of the US Constitution were negligent & derelict in their duty, resolve and imperative to secure and protect the highest office in the new republic, i.e. that of POTUS and commander in chief, from any foreign influence and claim.
see part 2
Part 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteIt is OBVIOUS beyond ANY DOUBT that the framers sought to have as POTUS, only those with the highest possible allegiance and dedication to the US, which is as per guidance sourced from one of their most read, studied and FAVORITE commentators on the law of nations Vattel, one born in the nation to parents who are citizens thereof.
This might interest you....
A Memento of JUDGE BEVERLY TUCKER,
Professor of Law in William & Mary College
Henry M. Vaider
"A RUNNING COMMENTARY ON
VATTEL'S LAW OF NATIONS,
CONSISTING OF SHORT NOTES AND PARALLEL REMARKS.
INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE CLASS OF NATIONAL LAW AT WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE
INTRODUCTION
Chap. 19. — It is a COMMON ERROR "That, by the Law of Nature," a man's native Country is the place of his birth, and that it is positive Law that makes him a member of the society to which his father belongs. The reverse is true.
To be a member of any society is to have certain rights, and to owe certain duties.
By the Law of Nature the Son inherits his Father's acquisitions, and, among these his rights.
But rights have their correlative duties. Claiming one he must perform the other.
What matter then where he is born?
He who is by the Law of Nature a native of one Country, and, by positive Law, a native of another, may have rights in both; but his natural duties belong to the first. His allegiance cannot be due to both."
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_cmt.htm
"Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected."
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html
When you can show me a Supreme Court opinion that clearly delineates three classes of citizenship then I will respond.
ReplyDeleteA link to Tripod site? Wow, now that's authoritative.
Barack Obama emerged as serious candidate for the presidency after giving the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. He declared his candidacy in January 2007. He campaigned all of 2007 and by the end of the year had emerged as one of two likely nominees for the Democratic party.
ReplyDeleteBy the end of March 2008 it is was clear Obama was going to be the nominee over Hillary Clinton. Hillary withdrew in June 2008 and backed Obama. Obama was chosen as the nominee in August 2008 and immediately was installed as the favorite over John McCain.
In November 2008 Obama won the general election and was elected with 365 electoral votes as the 44th President of the United States. The electoral vote was certified by a joint session of Congress on January 8, 2009. On January 20, 2009 Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office.
Now what is missing from that timeline? Well despite the fact that it was known for at least a dozen years that Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan and not a US citizen in 1961 not a single Republican politician mentioned that this would in any way possibly make Obama ineligible to hold the office. Not a even a single crazy blogger mentioned it until poker player and attorney Leo Donofrio concocted this insane legal theory in late 2008. To this day no Republican Obama opponent who have left no stone unturned to criticize the President has mentioned de Vattel. The Republican leadership consists of probably 90% attorneys but none of them has mentioned de Vattel.
No court agreed with this insane theory. Several courts have poo pooed it. One directly refute it in Indiana.
So what are we to conclude from this? My conclusion is that the proponents of the two citizen parent theory are completely and utterly full of crap.
"It is OBVIOUS beyond ANY DOUBT that the framers sought to have as POTUS, only those with the highest possible allegiance and dedication to the US, which is as per guidance sourced from one of their most read, studied and FAVORITE commentators on the law of nations Vattel, one born in the nation to parents who are citizens thereof."
ReplyDeleteAmazing someone can make such a statement when there isn't a shred of evidence a single framer agreed with them. In fact, it everything they did say supports their adoption of jus soli. You don't know what "allegiance" meant as there was no highest possible allegiance. One either owed allegiance or one didn't. The only question was whether is was local and temporary. Natural allegiance due from place of birth neither local or temporary and was the highest allegiance under English and American law.
The exaggeration of Vattel's importance is getting silly. Simply a fact that Blackstone was much more influential and there have been studies showing so. Vattel influence was limited to a narrow field of law that had no application inside the US. Simply a fact that you cannot cite a single legal authority of any significant in the first half century of the republic that connected the term "natural born" to Vattel. Doesn't exist. Nor did any such authority say he was relevant to US citizenship. Citizenship is municipal law. Vattel is public law. Different fields. Posting opinions on Vattel by people we never heard of is not going to convince us. Rather we look at the the framers, the courts, our state department and leading scholars have said and they all say you are wrong.
"The POINT IS, that if it were as the pundits for jus soli only, say, i.e. that the word "nature" was preferred & used most commonly to mean or infer "native", then why did Douglas say "native-born" instead of "natural-born" ????..."
ReplyDeleteWhy speculate when there a multitude of cases that clearly make the case they mean the same thing including in holding. You can't dispute that so you are going to keep speculating about a passage that simply doesn't say what you want it to say. Pretty pathetic.
"The naturalization Act of 1790 says it all, when it said:"
No idea what point you are trying to make. Congress here was simply copying English naturalization statutes for the foreign born with this Act. It has nothing to do with the native born. By definition, "naturalization" only applied to the foreign born. Even Madison said natives couldn't be naturalized as did the Supreme Court. That is the reason we have a 14th Amendment rather than just a statute. Congress realized it couldn't naturalize native blacks. Derivative citizenship under these Acts by definition only applied to the foreign born and no US court has ever suggested otherwise. Need to do a little more research before you post.
"A link to Tripod site? Wow, now that's authoritative."
ReplyDeleteYup. BTW, good show last night.
Thanks, Orly never disappoints.
ReplyDeleteI posted a link to this challenge at both Mario Apuzzo's and Leo Donofrio's blogs. I think that they would be accepted as the most widely known proponents of the two citizen parent theory.
ReplyDeleteThe principle of descent was paramount and also was common-place, with both the framers in drafting the US Constitution and its adoption in 1797, and with the US Congress in 1790, with regard to what was meant by the term "natural born Citizen" as used in the language of Article II of the USC.
ReplyDeleteThis means that when the framers drafted Article II of the USC and it was adopted in 1787, "natural" had nothing to do with "native", and had everything to do with parentage.
To the framers, (hypothetically, even without any consideration for Vattel)the descent principle of jus sanguinis trumped the principle of jus soli.
It was not until the later Naturalization Act of 1795, that the jus soli principle was positively added, and then eventually embedded in the USC via the 14th Amendment.
Ergo: there is no way, the framers of the USC meant in Article II, for "natural" to mean "native".
An Article II "natural born Citizen" is such by nature and birth-right.
A 14th Amendment "citizen" is such by birth-right ONLY.
On the matter of "nature" and "birth-right" (aka jus sanguinis and jus soli)
ReplyDeleteLord Coke - Calvin's case
Quote:
"Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by BIRTH RIGHT ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign."
"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by NATURE and BIRTHRIGHT"
"Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by PROCREATION and BIRTH RIGHT"
"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the PARENTS be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the TIME of his birth is chiefly to be considered; "
"that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT"
Btw, it is completely irrelevant as to why or how the parent was or was not a "subject"
Good grief, you still haven't figured out Calvin's Case yet. Again, it really isn't that hard. The English sometimes called alien friends "subjects" as, by definition, a "subject" was simply someone who owed allegiance and subjection to the crown. However, most authorities didn't use such terminology as it might confuse people like you. Natural born subjects owed permenant allegiance and subjection, aliens subjects owed temporary allegiance and subjection. Coke tells us temporary allegiance and subjection were sufficient to make one's issue a natural born subject. Hence Coke rejected the idea that natural born or naturalized parents were required, the whole point of the case. Coke also clearly stated that alien subjects had none of the rights of naturalized or natural born subjects.
ReplyDeleteThe law was the same in the United States though again such terminology was not used that often. Kent, for example, tells is that all inhabitants were subjects in that they were in subjection to the government and its laws. Hence, numerous examples of aliens, slaves and indians being called "subjects" can be found. Of course, such aleins subjects didn't have any of the rights of the natural born or the naturalized just like in England. Hence, both Coke and Justice Gray rejected the idea that one needed natural born or naturalized parents to make a natural born child. They both tell us that alien parents, other than ambassadors or invading enemies, owing a temporary allegiance and subjection are sufficient whether or not one calls them temporary subjects. Again, it is really not that hard if you open up your mind. You are stuck on semantics and not seeing Coke are Gray are saying the same thing, saying the same children are natural born. If you asked Gray if WKA's parents were subjects he would agree and point to his quotation of Kent that made such clear. He would also say that such terminology was generally not used in the US or England as "aliens" were usually just called "aliens."
"The principle of descent was paramount and also was common-place, with both the framers in drafting the US Constitution and its adoption in 1797, and with the US Congress in 1790, with regard to what was meant by the term "natural born Citizen" as used in the language of Article II of the USC.
ReplyDeleteThis means that when the framers drafted Article II of the USC and it was adopted in 1787, "natural" had nothing to do with "native", and had everything to do with parentage.
To the framers, (hypothetically, even without any consideration for Vattel)the descent principle of jus sanguinis trumped the principle of jus soli."
More gibberish. Doesn't even make the slightest sense. In English law, those born outside of England were aliens unless naturalized by statute. England naturalized foreign born children from descent by naturalization statutes that made such children "natural born subjects" at birth. Congress in 1790 said they needed to provide for children of citizens just like Parliament did in these naturalization statutes. If we followed a rule of descent, such statute would not be necessary. For anyone who can read English, the "natural born citizen" in the 1790 statute only refers to the foreign born and had nothing to do with what native born persons were natural born for, of course, the native born did not need such statutes and no legal authority in either nation ever suggested any native born person gained their citizenship through statute. It really isn't that hard. As Blackstone said, everyone was either natural born or alien born. The alien or foreign born could only have the status of natural born subjects by naturalization statute. Of course, no legal authority said jus sanguinis trumped jus soli. As the Supreme Court has said over and over, there is no jus sanguinis in the US outside of statute and if Congress wished, it could repeal such statutes.
> the "natural born citizen" in the 1790 statute only refers to the foreign born and had nothing to do with what native born persons were <
DeleteResponse:
I know, "native born" didn't get a mention, but that's not to say that all those that were native born were even citizens.
You are not resorting to your fallacies again are you?
As I have shown you, the Congress, in 1790, only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, based their meaning of "natural born" on DESCENT from parents, ergo: the word "natural" in the context of Article II, could not have meant "native", because these children described in the 1790 act were not native born in US.
So how then could "natural born" have meant native born?
The later removal (Act of 1795) of the words "natural born", and re-wording to "citizen" for the foreign born children of US citizens, does not change the fact that "natural born" meant by DESCENT; it merely demonstrates that the US Congress (particularly James Madison who drafted the bill)saw the need to ADD, tacitly by the omission of "natural born", the jus soli principle of native birth to the ALREADY established principle of citizenship by descent, which they called "natural", to protect and ensure security from any foreign influence, allegiance and claim the office of POTUS, given that the Congress knew full well(Madison probably reminded them)that the term "natural born Citizen" was not just a state of birth for qualifying as a "citizen", but rather that it was a deliberately thought out one-off term, describing eligibility requirement for highest office of POTUS and commander in chief.
This rightly so, reserved the description "natural born Citizen" to those who FIRST by DESCENT were born of US citizen parents AND who were also born in the US.
Your entire argument is based on the absurdity that the framers were derelict and negligent in their duty to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, allegiance and claim, and that "natural" meant "native".
Go read the "Annals of Congress" and see for yourself how paranoid the Congress was in the framing era.
The simple fact is that the framers of the USC deliberately chose "natural" over "native" to best describe one who is born of US citizen parents and within the limits of the US.
Learn to live with it!
There is a question as to why did the US Congress remove the wording "natural born" that was in the 1790 Naturalization Act when it superseded the act with the Naturalization Act of 1795.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can find out, James Madison was in the committee and drafted the 1795 act.
"natural born" was removed from the wording, which had in the 1790 act, described a child born outside the limits of the US, to US citizen parents; the 1795 act redefined such a child as a "citizen".
Important to note that in both instances the child was a citizen by DESCENT.
I tend to believe the change was because, born only to US parents, was not considered sufficient to make one a "natural born Citizen"; two essential qualities were required, i.e. born to US citizen parents AND born within the limits of the US.
Only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution, wherein Article II sets the eligibility requirement for POTUS, as a "natural born Citizen", the US Congress based the meaning of "natural born" on DESCENT from citizen parents, without any consideration for native birth.
Although the US Congress in 1795 added native birth to the descent quality, it was NEVER the case that the framers considered a native birth as sufficient to make a "natural born Citizen".
It is impossible for the framers of Article II of the USC to have intended "natural born" to mean merely native born.
.
The principle of jus sanguinis trumped jus soli, in 17th century English common law as well as in 18th century framing period of US.
ReplyDeleteLord Coke - Calvin's case
(this case was cited by "honest" Horace Gray as the holy-grail for defining "natural born")
Lord Coke:
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia THAT MAKE THE SUBJECT BORN: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that ISSUE IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT..."
As I have pointed out before, the notion that native birth is sufficient to make a "natural born" is absurd ............... your entire desperate and futile argument is based on absurdity.
P.s. it is completely irrelevant as to why or how the parent father was or wasn't a "subject".
MichaelIN, I have one of the challenge cases in Alabama...of course it was dismissed last Friday on Jurisdiction. I haven't even received the motion to dismiss from Attorney Barry Ragsdale yet. However, I read a lot of what you wrote and you are exactly correct.
ReplyDeletehere's the basic facts I wanted to pose but was not allowed to in court. (yet)
1. The US constitution requires the president to be a "natural born citizen".
2. Minor v Happersett is the only Supreme Court case that defines NBC just as you described..... born on US soil to US Citizen Parents (Plural)
3. The POTUS is the only office in the land that requires this special "natural born citizenship" status. It was there for a reason.
5. No other Supreme Court case has EVER declared a person born with a foreign parent as a Natural born citizen. It has never happened.
6. Obama's father was not a US citizen.
7. Obama IS NOT a natural born citizen and cannot possibly find any precedence in any court of law that will declare him so.
8. Obama is ineligible to run for POTUS...final.
"As I have shown you, the Congress, in 1790, only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, based their meaning of "natural born" on DESCENT from parents, ergo: the word "natural" in the context of Article II, could not have meant "native", because these children described in the 1790 act were not native born in US."
ReplyDeleteYou are touching upon the McCain argument. While the framers didn't tell us why they chose the language, they most likely chose "natural born" over "native" because "natural born" was the technical term of art in England. The English, such as Blackstone, conflated the terms "native" and "natural born" as well as the vast majority of the natural born were natives, certain foreign born persons were also called "natural born. Thus "natural born" was the technical term used in statutes and case law. It appears the same thing applied in the US as "natives" was used regularly but it was "natural born" that appeared in statutes and State constitutions. For example, in the Constitutional Convention they used the term "native" when discussing eligiblity, but in drafting the Constitution, they used the broader "natural born" presumably because such would include some foreign born persons given natural born status by statute like in England. However, our Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark and numberous other cases has limited "natural born" to "native born," but the Court has not dealt with the issue outside of dicta. One day the court will probably address whether "natural born" can include the foregin born as well.
You can rant all you want, the fact that the English and Americans used descent for foreign born persons does not mean descent was relevant to the native born. All legal authority says it was not and if we had adopted a rule of descent there would be no need for this statute to provide for these citizens.
I have no idea what you are rambling about on the 1795 Act, but there is no legislative history on the change in language and claiming Madison did anything or speculating on why the language was changed is just making stuff up. Again, the 1795 Act speaks solely to the foreign born and it is just dumb to try to claim it says anything about the native born.
"Your entire argument is based on the absurdity that the framers were derelict and negligent in their duty to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, allegiance and claim, and that "natural" meant "native"."
Uh, no acutal lawyers base their arguments on the actual statements of the framers, the fact that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were conflacted by everyone in the early republic, that all early authroity supports the jus soli reading and all our case law supports such reading. What a foreign, non-lawyer who clearly doesn't understand the law says is not very important.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou said ............
Delete"While the framers didn't tell us why they chose the language, they most likely chose "natural born" over "native" because "natural born" was the technical term of art in England."
You can squirm all you like with your "most likely" this and "most likely" that, but your argument is based on absurdity to start with mixed with wishful fantasies and it completely fails, but for the sake of clarity in this matter, I will re-cap.
Here's what ACTUALLY happened, no "most likely' needed.
The US Congress in 1790, only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, "told us why they chose the language", when they made it very clear that "natural born", as in the context of Article II of the USC, was with regard, PRIMARILY to the citizen status of the parents and DEFINITELY NOT with any regard to native birth.
This is proven fact, none of your fallacy-ridden, desperate squirming can change this fact proven.
So when you play your tired and pathetic "honest Horace" WKA/English common law card, you still lose (or should I say lose again) as the English common law referred to in WKA, agrees and is consistent with the descent principle of the framers in 1787, the US Congress in 1790 & the US Senate in 1790.
Lord Coke - Calvin's case.
"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT"
So squirm away, and wallow in your delusional world of make believe, pile-on your absurd, fallacy-ridden drivel all you like; the fact still remains proven, that in the framing period, the framers, the congress and the senate meant "natural" to EXCLUSIVELY be relative to DESCENT.
"The principle of jus sanguinis trumped jus soli, in 17th century English common law as well as in 18th century framing period of US...
ReplyDeleteAs I have pointed out before, the notion that native birth is sufficient to make a "natural born" is absurd ............... your entire desperate and futile argument is based on absurdity"
Oh, I forgot that you don't read anyone else's comments, but just repeat the same line from Coke over and over. Of course, neither Coke nor Justice Gray said all native born are "natural born." The father needs to owe a temporary allegaince and subjection. However, they both say that everyone in England or the US other than the de minimis classes of ambassodors or invading enemies (exceptions dictated by international or public law), owe a temporary allegiance and subjection including WKA's parents. That is not "jus sanguinis" as the parents do not need to be citizens or nationals of the nation, they could simply be foreigners that are not included in the two de minimis exception. It is "jus soli" which has the same exceptions in all nations as a matter of public law. If you can't understand that both Coke and Gray say any child of an unnaturalized alien outside these two exceptions are natural born, I really can't help you. I know, everyone in English and American history is wrong and you are right. What kind of person actually makes such argument?
What is funny is your Coke nonsense is ignored on every birther thread you spout it. Must be proud to have an argument too dumb for the birthers.
"No other Supreme Court case has EVER declared a person born with a foreign parent as a Natural born citizen. It has never happened."
ReplyDeleteActually, the Court has never declared anyone a natural born citizen. The Minor court only called Virginia Minor a "citizen." You need to take a lesson in holding and dicta as a Court does not need to declare someone to be a "natural born citizen" in order to clearly define the term and for such definition to be holding rather than dicta. Why do you post about things you don't understand?
Not that this really matters in showing your failed argument for what it is, i.e. I have already proven the fact that from the outset, the framers, congress and the senate in the framing period, deemed "natural born" to primarily mean by descent, and later they indicated that native birth in the nation, was required to make a "citizen", later ratified by the 14th Amendment.
DeleteBasically they were saying that "natural" did not necessarily mean native, because the child referred to in the 1790 act was not native born.
Re: your opinion as regards precedent.
"Persuasive precedent
Main article: Persuasive precedent
Precedent that is not mandatory but which is useful or relevant is known as persuasive precedent (or persuasive authority or advisory precedent). Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.
In a case of first impression, courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court."
"The US Congress in 1790, only three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, "told us why they chose the language", when they made it very clear that "natural born", as in the context of Article II of the USC, was with regard, PRIMARILY to the citizen status of the parents and DEFINITELY NOT with any regard to native birth."
ReplyDeleteYou are just being dishonest now. They did not say why they adopted the statute other than they were copying similar English statutes. No honest person would say such statute meant "natural born" status was primaruliy based upon parentage. Obviously, bestowing such status on the foreign born could only be jus sanguinis as, by definition, it could not be jus soli as such persons were foreign born. Duh. The citizenship statutes of England and the US on foreign born persons by their terms, by their legislative histories and by their interpretation by the courts were understood to have no impact on persons born in England or the US. To claim it does is a proven fact really shows there is a problem with your reasoning.
"So when you play your tired and pathetic "honest Horace" WKA/English common law card, you still lose (or should I say lose again) as the English common law referred to in WKA, agrees and is consistent with the descent principle of the framers in 1787, the US Congress in 1790 & the US Senate in 1790."
You are simply delusional as Gray and every legal authority on both nations say you are wrong. It is really sad at this point you can't see the Coke and Gray say the same persons are natural born. Fortunately, we really don't care about the opinions of foreigners who have never studied law.
"So squirm away, and wallow in your delusional world of make believe, pile-on your absurd, fallacy-ridden drivel all you like; the fact still remains proven, that in the framing period, the framers, the congress and the senate meant "natural" to EXCLUSIVELY be relative to DESCENT."
Of course, no framer or legal authority said that. No memeber of congress said that in 1790 but you are trying to twist a statute that by its terms only applies to the foreign born somehow is relevant to the native born even though no legal authority ever said so. At this point, I feel sorry for you.
It is completely irrelevant as to why "they adopted the statute", other than to observe and acknowledge the FACT that the Congress in 1790 deemed a person born outside the limits of the US as a "natural born citizen", and this took place a mere three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, in which Article II was the ONLY place in the US Constitution where this language had been used.
DeleteThis language used in 1790 by the US Congress, confirmed that "natural born", in the context of the USC Article II, meant by descent from the US citizen parent.
Ergo: Citizen status of the parents was THE PARAMOUNT consideration in determining "natural born"
Yes, it was to the exclusion of native birth because it was about people born not native, but that does not change the fact that "natural born" was due to descent in the minds of the framers in 1787 and earlier, the US Congress in 1790 and the US Senate in 1790.
There was NOTHING that indicates in any way, that the Framers, Congress and the Senate of 1790, considered "natural born" to be based solely on native birth in US.
It went without saying that the child of US citizens, born within the limits of the US, was also "natural born Citizen", but the Congress were not making rules about those who were native born to US citizen parents, nor could they deny a person born in US to US citizen parents "natural born" status, PRIMARILY BECAUSE of the NATURAL DESCENT from the parents.
It is obvious that the US Congress, in developing their re-vamped Nat. Act of 1795, realized that native birth within the limits of the US was also needed to be ADDED to achieve the complete citizen entity that Article II aimed to describe and they removed the WORDING "natural born", still leaving the DESCENT requirement, so as to be "politically correct".
In any event, your entire argument is based on absurdity, for the reasons I have already pointed-out to you.
"Not that this really matters in showing your failed argument for what it is, i.e. I have already proven the fact that from the outset, the framers, congress and the senate in the framing period, deemed "natural born" to primarily mean by descent, and later they indicated that native birth in the nation, was required to make a "citizen", later ratified by the 14th Amendment."
ReplyDeleteBack in the world of reality, you have proven nothing. You have made an assertion supported by no legal authority. What is a fact is that "natural born" under English law was broader than "native born" as such included non-natives. Although this is the obvious reason for the change in language, you simply assert you have proven otherwise without actually presenting any proof. I suggest you take a course in logic.
"Re: your opinion as regards precedent."
I suggest you actually study some law before you start opining on such issues. Minor is not persuasive precedent. It is obiter dicta on an issue that was not raised or argued before the court, that makes no argument or cites no precedent to support its assertions. It is not precedent at all and, of course, such court expressly declined to address the status of chldren of aliens. A lawyer citing Minor as precedent that children of aliens are not natural born would likely be sanctioned by a real court.
It was SCOTUS opinion that that Virginia Minor was a "natural born citizen", due by nature and birthright, i.e. by descent from US citizen parents AND by native birth right.
DeleteThis was cited in other subsequent SCOTUS cases, it was precedent.
Minor v Happersett..........
"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." BUT IN OUR OPINION IT DID NOT NEED THIS AMENDMENT TO GIVE THEM THAT POSITION. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision."
"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, IT IS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHAT PERSONS ORIGINALLY associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership."
The SCOTUS found it "NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN" to arrive at their DECISION/RULING.
Your pathetic playing with words is merely desperation on your part, in your denial.
Your entire argument is based on absurdity and your political bias jades your credibility; you are being dishonest..............you have a vested interest, you are afraid of the truth.
Here is the "cruncher" that completely demolishes your absurd argument, where in the very same passage of text, the SCOTUS makes the clear distinction between the native born "natural born citizen" and the native born who MIGHT be a citizen.
And it ain't no dicta.
Even if, as in your fantasy-world that it was dicta, what the hell does it matter?
You keep desperately mining for your silly pathetic little legal technicalities to prop-up your failed absurd argument, rather than do the right and honourable thing and face the truth.
You know damn well that the Framers of 1787, the US Congress and US Senate of 1790 deemed "natural born" to mean PRIMARILY by DESCENT and NOT solely by native birth.
"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.
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."
You argument is absurd...... you are in denial.
Btw, to those who run around bleating that the 14th Amendment somehow asserts that a 14th Amendment describes Article II "natural born Citizen" as solely due by native birth, you will appreciate that, if.....
DeleteQuote:
"THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT SAY in words WHO SHALL BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN......."
Then how the heck can the 14th Amendment say it, being a part of the Constitution?
"Re: your opinion as regards precedent.
ReplyDelete"Not that this really matters in showing your failed argument for what it is, i.e. I have already proven the fact that from the outset, the framers, congress and the senate in the framing period, deemed "natural born" to primarily mean by descent, and later they indicated that native birth in the nation, was required to make a "citizen", later ratified by the 14th Amendment."
In the reality based world, you have proven nothing. You are making assertions you cannot back with a single statement or legal authority to support it. What is a fact is that under English law, "natural born" was broader than "native born" and hence was the technical term. How about finding a single person actually saying you are right rather just insisting such is true. As we all know, all American legal authority say you are wrong. Their opinions count, not yours.
"Persuasive precedent
Main article: Persuasive precedent"
I suggest you study law before opining on things you don't understand. Minor is obiter dicta on an issue not raised or argued before the court that cites no authority and makes no argument for its assertions. And, of course, it declined to take a position of children of aliens. A real Court would likely sanction someone claiming Minor was precedent with respect to Obama.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete@ MichaelN
DeleteI just removed your last post for using derogatory language to refer to the President. Cross the line one more time and you will not be allowed to post for a month.
To date no proponent of the two citizen parent theory has stepped forward to take the debate challenge. I posted a link at Mario's blog and about the only response was one from James, aka JY 1977 advising his hero Mario Apuzzo to avoid a real debate.
ReplyDeleteI also left a comment at Leo Donofrio's blog but he never posted it. The only published comments at his blog are by Leo himself. It is very lonely there. :)
"Btw, to those who run around bleating that the 14th Amendment somehow asserts that a 14th Amendment describes Article II "natural born Citizen" as solely due by native birth, you will appreciate that, if...."
ReplyDeleteBecause Wong Kim Ark in holding, not dicta, said tha 14th Amendment clarified and restated the rule in the original Constitution. I know you have never read the debates on the 14th Amendment becuase, well, birthers don't actually read authority. However, if you did you would find that they clearly thought they were clarifying who could be President. In fact, every significant person in the debates on citizenship in such Congress said the president must be a native born citizen. They were clarifying in such Congress who was a native born citizen. Not really hard to see why they thought they were clarifying who could be President. For example:
"The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States.." Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866).
"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 Constitution, 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)
"then that clause of the Constitution which requires that the President of the United States shall be a native-born citizen of the United States is repealed, and any person who hasbeen naturalized and then become a citizen of the United States will be eligible to the office of President;" Senator Howard, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1013 (1869)
"The Constitution requires that the President must be a native-born citizen of the United States." Sen. Sherman, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 1035 (1869)
"No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Consitution, can be voted for." Sen. Johnson, The Congressional Globe, 2nd Session, 38th Congress, pg.552 (1865)
"that the President and Vice President must be native born." Rep. Clarke, Congressional Globe, 2nd session, 40th Congress. 1105 (1868)(expatriation debates).
"One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen." Sen. Davis, The presidential counts, pg. 203 (1877).
"What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!'' Rep. Boutwell, Great Debates in American History, pg. 113 (1913)
"The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be." Sen. Henderson, Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)
You said .........
Delete"The Constitution of the United States provides that no person but a native-born citizen of the United States, with other qualifications as to age and residence, shall be president of the United States.." Senator Williams, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 573 (1866)."
Your desperation to twist the meaning of the USC knows no ends...... so a legislator, some 80 YEARS AFTER the adoption of the USC, uses the superset term "native-born" to describe what the framers said in 1787 in Art.II as a subset i.e."natural born" and suddenly by magic the meaning of Article II changes ............. you are in fantasy-land.
Your argument is still absurd, the founding fathers and framers of the USC were not so lax as you wish.
In the real world, the 39th Congress were having a hard time coming to grips with the notion that local native Indians should be ordinary citizens at all, let alone "natural born"...... they simply were not ready to be citizens, let alone as native-born, be eligible for the presidency of the US.
Mr. Trumbull speaks in the same session, stating that the US legislature "would have no right to make citizens" of persons born native in US, who were temporary visitors............... and he was referring to BORN persons.
Mr. Trumbull:
“There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States and who owe allegiance to it.
I thought that might perhaps be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, ‘That all persons born in the United State and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens;’
But upon investigation it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily resident in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer”
The rest of your cherry-picked quotes, do nothing to counter the fact that the founding fathers and framers of the USC in 1787, the Congress and the Senate, only three years after in 1790, based the meaning on "natural" on descent, which proves that the word "natural", as in the context of Article II of the USC was not at all confined to mean native as you absurdly wish it did.
Citing commentaries of people who were in the habit of preferring to use the super-set term 'native' that PARTIALLY describes the ACTUAL term "natural" used in the USC, only demonstrates the extent you have and will go to in your desperation to twist the truth.
Nothing in the quotes you posted, denies that descent is necessarily absent or was excluded in the Article II requirement for a native-born to meet with the intent and meaning of Article II "natural born"....... of course the "natural born" were native-born, so what?
The originators of the Article II constitutional term "natural born Citizen" intended and meant for those who were "natural born" to be a native-born with citizenship established also by natural descent, i.e. by nature as well as by native birth-right.
By nature and birth-right, just like Lord Coke stated, where the subject/citizen status of the father was essential and paramount in making a "natural born", for if the father was not a subject/citizen, then the native-born cannot be a "natural born".
"It was SCOTUS opinion that that Virginia Minor was a "natural born citizen", due by nature and birthright, i.e. by descent from US citizen parents AND by native birth right."
ReplyDeleteAmatuer hour. The court never said Minor was a natural born citizen, only a "citizen." Her citizenship was admitted by defendant and was amongst the stipulated facts of the case, hence her citizenship status was not before the court. If one can read they would find that the discussion of citizenship was not about Minor's citizenship but was about the court's argument that women had always been citizens. Have none of your ilk even read the case? The court makes 5 different arguments that women were always citizens including that such was the case under the common law. The decision says all that was necessary for purposes of the case was to determine that women were always citizens, not that parentage mattered. Look at the conclusion of the paragraph you always cite, it concluded that women were included under the common law which is the whole purpose of the discussion, not that Virgina Minor was a citizen. You can spin all day, but you are simply lying if you say that Waite said that children of aliens were not natural born. He expressly declined to opine on their status and no honest person would argue that clalling someone a "citizen" means they are not a "natural born citizen" as Waite only called Minor a "citizen" even thought he implicated she was natural born. The Case actually clearly provides that there are 2 types of citizens, natual born and naturalized. Again, have you actually read any of these cases?
As I have already pointed out, within the very same passage of text, the court affirmed that a child born in US to US citizen parents (aka a native born citizen or a citizen by birth) was a "natural born citizen", then the court noted without contest, that it was DOUBTFUL that a child born in US to alien parents (aka a NATIVE born)was even a citizen at all.
DeleteNote in the following, the court opines "citizens" by birth, NOT "natural born"
Minor v Happersett:
"From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already CITIZENS BY BIRTH."
Ergo: at least TWO CLASSES as subsets of "citizens by birth", i.e. those born in the US, to US citizen parents, who were such by natural descent AND native birth-right & because of these TWO qualities they were titled "natural born citizens" (an apt description of one whom there would be NO DOUBTS about foreign allegiance, loyalty, influence and claim - perfect for a POTUS), then there were those born in US, to non-citizen parents, who were such by native birth-right ONLY and titled "citizens".
The very fact that the Congress and the Senate of 1790, a mere three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, titled a child born NON-NATIVE as "natural born", proves that the language "natural" was PRIMARILY intended to mean by DESCENT.
It therefore becomes CLEAR and without ANY doubt that the framers choice of "natural" rather than "native" in the Article II POTUS eligibility clause, was deliberately with careful regard to citizen status of the parent and with the principle of descent as THE PARAMOUNT & ESSENTIAL quality of a "natural born".
This is consistent with the English common law, in the case cited by "honest" Horace Gray, Calvin's case, where Lord Coke pointed out that the "subject" status of the father and with the principle of descent as THE PARAMOUNT & ESSENTIAL quality of a "natural born".
Your entire argument is based on the absurdity that I have previously described, the framers were not so lax as you WISH they were.
.
"It is completely irrelevant as to why "they adopted the statute", other than to observe and acknowledge the FACT that the Congress in 1790 deemed a person born outside the limits of the US as a "natural born citizen", and this took place a mere three years after the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, in which Article II was the ONLY place in the US Constitution where this language had been used.
ReplyDeleteThis language used in 1790 by the US Congress, confirmed that "natural born", in the context of the USC Article II, meant by descent from the US citizen parent."
You don't dissapoint in that you continue to just repeat yourself over and over and ignore any posts that show you are wrong. I should point out that the 1790 statute did not make the foregin born "natural born citizens," it said such foreign born, would would otherwise be aliens, were "considered as" natural born citizens." Big difference from being a "natural born citizen" and being "considered as" a "natural born citizen." Congress obviously could deem any foreigner to be "considered as" a native born citizen as could Parliament. But, of course, on both sides of the Atlantic, allowing some foreign born persons to be "considered as" the native born does not change the status of the native born.
Of course, since you cannot find any legal authority of the period to support you, you need to claim you have devined some secret meaning that no one else saw. You can't find one framer, congessmen, scholar or court of the period to agree with you but, of course, they didn't see your secret meaning that a statute that said some foreign born were to be "considered as" the native born somehow redefined who was native born. It is your fantasy world that everly legal authority in the early republic was wrong in saying we followed jus soli and thus every legal authority in such era didn't understand their own law. Of course, you also believe that no legal authorities in England understood their own law. Quite sad that you still don't understand that it was the understanding of the legal authorities in such periods that represents what the law was, not the opinions of a legal novice, 200 years later, who thinks he has discovered a secret meaning no one else could see.
You said ............
ReplyDelete"I should point out that the 1790 statute did not make the foregin born "natural born citizens," it said such foreign born, would would otherwise be aliens, were "considered as" natural born citizens." Big difference from being a "natural born citizen" and being "considered as" a "natural born citizen." Congress obviously could deem any foreigner to be "considered as" a native born citizen as could Parliament. But, of course, on both sides of the Atlantic, allowing some foreign born persons to be "considered as" the native born does not change the status of the native born."
Reply:
All the persons whom the 1790 Nat. Act was providing naturalization for were "considered" this or that, so what?
YOU are STILL mining for any word you can seize on, in your desperate attempts to distort the truth of the matter; the framers were not so lax as you WISH, your entire argument is based on absurdity and driven by political bias; you are in denial because of your vested interest.
Here's the text of the act of 1790.
- United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be CONSIDERED as a Citizen of the United States.
And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be CONSIDERED as citizens of the United States.
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 resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."
The children born off-shore, to US citizen parents, were "considered as natural born citizens" BECAUSE of the US CITIZEN status of their PARENTS .............i.e. by DESCENT.
This proves that the word "natural" was not used solely to mean native and that the word "natural" was RELATIVE TO DESCENT.