History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.
The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.
Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White
As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein
However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;
The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.
The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”
The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Note the following text—“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Further clarification—“The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;”
And the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;
“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;”
Not “native” or “naturalized” or “citizen,” but only “natural born” citizens can hold the office of president.
The matter is quite clear and it is on this basis that I have written that John Sidney McCain is indeed a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and the Barack Hussein Obama is not, no matter where in the world he might have been born.
A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth.
Some argue that the XIV Amendment altered the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States;” However, the XIV Amendment makes no mention of “natural born citizen” as it was written to address issues of “immigration” and “naturalization,”—which excludes any redress regarding “native” or “natural born” citizens of the Unites States. In short, “natural born” is the exact opposite of “naturalized.” They are two completely different subjects and as we know, “naturalized citizens” cannot hold the office of President, though they are indeed “citizens” with otherwise equal rights. As Barack Hussein Obama’s stated birth father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, but rather a British subject and native citizen of Kenya, it is not possible for Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. It is therefore not possible for Barack Hussein Obama Jr. to be a constitutionally qualified resident of the people’s White
Only the people can decide…
But I submit to every American the idea that if Article II—Section I of the US Constitution is no longer worthy of protection and preservation, then nothing in that document matters anymore.
If we fail to uphold Article II—Section I of the US Constitution, then we have failed to uphold, protect, preserve or defend any part of the US Constitution or the American way of life.
If the US Constitution no longer stands, then the United States of America no longer stands.
Is there a more pressing issue on the table today?
Vattel was a Swiss monarchist who recommended that each country have an official religion and force people to join it or allow them to leave the country.
ReplyDeleteJust as the writers of the Constitution did not follow this suggestion, there is no evidence that they followed Vattel in the two parent theory either. Vattel is never mentioned in the Federalist Papers, but the common law is mentioned about twenty times, and the first American leader who used the term "Natural Born Citizen" was John Jay, a lawyer and judge who would become the first Chief Justice, and who was very familiar with the common law (but who has never mentioned Vattel in any of his writings that we know).
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)
And that is why there have been federal law cases in which the judges found that the US born children of one or two foreign citizens are Natural Born US Citizens. Such as:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.
What made the third child a Natural Born Citizen? The fact that she was born in the USA.
You said: "A Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama solves nothing, other than curiosity. A “certification of live birth” means even less, as it only confirms that a child was indeed “born live”—with no reference as to where that birth took place, or who attended or witnessed that birth."
ReplyDeleteIt is a short-form birth certificate. It does not say what hospital or who delivered the child because it is a short-form birth certificate. But it is a birth certificate, and the only birth certificate that Hawaii currently issues, and Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
More important, Hawaii does not and did not in 1961 allow a birth document of any kind to be issued that says on it "born in Hawaii" unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii. Obama's Certification says on it "born in Hawaii," and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the original document does too, and so has the governor of Hawaii.
The Wall Street Journal said:
'In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.'
And, it concluded: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.'
It looks as though the Flying Monkey "smrstrauss" has changed nis "nic" to "TellerIP".
ReplyDeleteSorry, pal (and wife Ann), you Obots can't hide that way. That's about as "clever" as what your hero BHO has done in hiding his eligibility since the man has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
TellerIP,
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter, you cannot find a United States Supreme Court case that supports your personal opinion of what a "natural born Citizen' is, an opinion that is driven by your party politics?
TellerIP,
ReplyDeleteYou mention that Vattel was a Swiss monarchist. I believe he lived in a republic if you check your history and that his political philosophy was that man was born free and equal. Also, you swear by William Blackstone, telling us how he provided the Framers with the definition of a "natural born subject" which they then used to define a "natural born Citizen." First, you do not have any evidence for your theory. Second, what was Blackstone? Was he not a monarchist?
Do you have anything else to support your personal opinions?
To Puzio1
ReplyDeleteGreetings Counselor. There IS a Supreme Court case that supports what I say. It is the Wong Kim Ark case, which said very clearly that EVERY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born. It is simply a quibble to say that that might not mean that every child who becomes a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen. That is true, and it is obvious. It is OBVIOUS, that when you put together the qualities of being Natural Born and the quality of being a citizen in a person, you have a Natural Born Citizen.
NO supreme court case subsequent to Wong has ruled any differently. And there are numerous lower court cases that have taken the Wong ruling to mean that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. To be sure, these are dicta. But the view of these many federal court judges is, sorry to say, more reliable than yours.
I respect the fact that you represent the two-fer side of this argument. But that also means that you are not impartial. The judges who issued those statements in which the US-born children of foreigners are considered Natural Born Citizens are presumably impartial. I use their ruling to show that the overwhelming weight of constitutional opinion is not on your side, meaning that the chance of your getting five votes on the Supreme Court is just about nil. I do not think that you can get four votes to call the case, or even three justices.
Vattel never recommends elections. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that it is a bad thing. (So he might not have recommended that the US Constitution limit the presidency to US citizens, much less to two-citizen-parent citizens). All that we have of Vattel to support your case is the phrase that “idignes (translated by some as Natural Born Citizens) are born in the country of two citizen parents. But Vattel does not define what a citizen is or should be. Under colonial laws, Indians were not citizens. But Vattel might have considered that they were citizens. “Citizens” is a legal term, but Vattel does not use legal terms. If, as you say, he believed that “man was born free and equal,” that might have meant that he considered slaves to be citizens. If so, I would admire that view, but it was not shared by the writers of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteHe was an expert in international law, but the election of a president is a domestic legal matter, and Vattel does not ever discuss elections.
What we do know is that Vattel is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers, but the common law is mentioned about twenty times.
We also know that John Jay, who may have been the first single American leader to use the term Natural Born Citizen (It was used earlier by a committee of the Continental Congress in a letter in 1777) was a lawyer. Since you are a lawyer, that is hardly shocking. But it would be extremely odd for a lawyer to use the term “Natural Born” and assume that the reader would know that he meant Vattel’s definition.
We know that John Jay, who was the main writer of the 1777 Constitution of New York State actually wrote the common law into that constitution. This means that the common law was on his mind. Vattel might not have been. I have been unable to find a single reference to Vattel in Jay’s writings (and as I said, he is not referred to in the Federalist Papers).
Now, what do you mean that the definition of Natural Born Citizen that I use is merely a “personal opinion”?
ReplyDeleteThere is this definition, for example:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
And this:
“It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” Yale Law Review (in 1988, I believe)
And this:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in a December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
And this: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Then, of course, there is the Electoral College, many of whose members are lawyers. After Obama’s popular election, birthers and two-fers wrote to many of the electors urging them to change their votes for Obama based on the interpretation of the Constitution that you hold. Not one changed a vote. Interestingly, it is common for one elector to change a vote. That has occurred in many elections. But in this case, not one did. Moreover, the US Congress confirmed the election UNANIMOUSLY, which of course would not have been the case if even one member of Congress held your view of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
Blackstone was a monarchist in the sense that Britain is a monarchy, but he constantly talks about the government being limited by the courts. In any case, he is a lawyer, not a philosopher, and he was by no means alone in his opinion of what Natural Born meant. I can give you about ten uses of Natural Born by such American legal leaders as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, and they always use the term in the Blackstone sense and never in the Vattel sense. Adams actually used Natural Born Citizen as a synonym for Natural Born Subject in a draft treaty (as did Jay, who also participated in writing that draft).
Then there is the fact that the writers of the Constitution themselves allowed citizens who were NOT natural born to become president in the grandfather clause. That would have allowed Alexander Hamilton, who was not even born in one of the 13 colonies to be president, and it would have allowed about 60,000 other non-US born men to become president some historical research has found. Ultimately, the grandfather clause allowed Andrew Jackson, neither of whose parents were US citizens, to become president.
Ah, but you can say “the grandfather clause has expired.” To be sure. But would the original writers of the Constitution, who allowed even people who were not born in the USA to be president, require someone at a future date to have TWO US citizens as their parents? If so, surely they would have told us, and told us why. Moreover, the writers were mainly American lawyers, they were familiar with jus soli, not with the jus sanguinis of France and Italy and Germany. They would never have adopted jus sanguinis without telling us, and certainly would not have adopted a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli without any explanation.