© Bridgette WTPOTUS 2010
“Looking Back at History”
Natural Born Citizen Discussions in the Late 1800’s
Over 2 1/2 years ago when the subject of Obama’s eligibility or his ineligibility was brought to the forefront during the election cycle in 2008, I was amazed that he would qualify. I remembered what I was taught in civics classes in high school; the President and Vice President must be natural born citizens. Those are the only two jobs in the United States that have the requirement that those persons must be natural born citizens. According to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, there are only three requirements that a person must meet to be eligible for the office of president:
- Be a “Natural Born Citizen of the United States”
- Be at least thirty-five years old;
- Have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.
To satisfy my recollection and to dispute what the Left was touting as the requirements by using the 14th amendment as Obama’s qualifier, and Black’s Law Dictionary’s limited definition of natural born citizen, I researched newspaper sources from the late 1800’s. Famous constitutionalists and scholars of their time answer questions that we have had about both Obama’s and John McCain’s eligibility to run as presidential candidates. The examples of certain situations about others can be applied to these two men who were nominated by their respective parties in 2008.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle provided many examples that addressed the natural born citizen issue in their question and answer columns. Remember, millions of immigrants were arriving in the United States from foreign countries, and were very interested in citizenship requirements, as well as knowing if their children would qualify for the presidency. Many of these old newspapers were so difficult to read that I typed them. Below are a few samples of those questions and answers that were found in newspapers from 1859 – 1897. There are several of these “Question & Answer” columns that were printed and easy to read. Those will speak for themselves. Others are transcribed. Words that could not be deciphered are shown as ??. These articles are bound to raise questions as well as answer them. When commenting, please use the date of the article for reference if you are addressing a certain situation.
The first article below asks: if a person with American parents is born in a foreign country would he be eligible to the presidency? Note the answer states “parents” not the singular word “parent.” This answer does not use born on U.S. soil as a qualifier. Also, the word “foreigner” was misused and most likely was meant to be “person.”
Brooklyn Eagle, September 5, 1880
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, May 27, 1888
Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to Be President?
Office of President
Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to It?
Your question has been answered so often in these columns that readers should be familiar with the subject. Only a natural born citizen is eligible to the Presidency of the United States. A natural born citizen is one born on the soil, within the allegiance of the United States, and not one who is made a citizen by law.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, January 25, 1891
To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:
My parents are both Germans and have resided in Germany all their lives, with the exception of four months which they spent visiting some friends in this city, when and where I was born. On their return to Hamburg, two months later, of course they took me with them, and there I have since lived. On the 21st of last October I was just 21 years old, when I landed in New York, and intend to make this country my home. Now what I want to know is: Have I the full privilege of a natural born citizen, or should I have to take out any papers? Would I be eligible to be President should I ever be nominated and elected? Signed Sturger.
Answer: This correspondent will have to obtain his naturalization papers just the same as any other natural born German. He was born of German parents while they were on a visit to this country. They were not emigrants and they were not settled here in any sense. The boy born here under these circumstances is a German subject, until he declares his intention to become a citizen of the United States.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 15, 1891
To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle
My wife and I are Americans and go to London on a pleasure trip. While in London my wife has a child, a boy. Can he become the President of the United States and what nation does he claim? Signed L.G.M.
Answer – Your boy, born in London, would be an American citizen, because a law enacted by congress makes him one, but he is not eligible to the presidency of the United States. The constitution of the United States provides that eligibility to the presidency makes it necessary for the person to have been a “natural born citizen.”
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Natural Born Citizen
June 17, 1900
Note that this states “You and Your Wife” and that would be “Parents,” not the singular word “Parent.”
“J. Son.” — If you and your wife, who are native born citizens of the United States should visit Europe as tourists, and during your tour a male child should be born to you, he would NOT be eligible to the presidency of the United States, because he would not be “a natural born” citizen. He would, however, be a citizen of the United States, because made so by the law. This is the law (approved February 10, 1855): “That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States, shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” If the son born abroad should remain abroad, and never reside in the United States, his children would not be citizens of the United States.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 16, 1901
This one also states that a child born to American “parents” (not parent) when abroad is NOT a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution of the United States.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 26, 1888
An article entitled “Office of President,” and printed on the sixth page of to-day’s EAGLE, will attract attention. The Constitution of the United States prescribes among other qualifications that the President shall be “a natural born citizen.”
Is the child of a citizen born abroad while his father is temporarily absent from the country, say on diplomatic service, “a natural born citizen,” within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore eligible to that extent for the Presidency? The law makes such a person a citizen for ordinary purposes. He may vote and hold real estate. So may a man made a citizen by law in any other way, as by acts and proceedings of naturalization. The Constitution does not merely provide that “a Citizen” shall be eligible for President. He must be “a natural born” citizen.
Does this exclude citizens made by law, whether naturalized foreigners or children of citizens as to whom the statute declares that the accident of their birth outside of the country shall not deprive them of their common citizenship? Must the President have actually been born on our soil? Story, Kent, Paschal, Daniel Webster and Bates seem to incline to a strict construction of the Constitutional clause and to hold that nobody born on foreign soil, in any circumstances, is eligible to the Presidency.
On the other hand, Senator Evarts, formerly Secretary of State of the United States, says that a child born in the circumstances suggested “would be eligible,” and other authorities agree with him. The subject is quite likely to provoke discussion.
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 26, 1888
Office of President
Is a Citizen Born Abroad Eligible to It?
Arguments on Either Side of the Question
What is the Constitutional Meaning of the Word “Natural?”
Opinions of the Hon. William N. Evarts, A.P. Morse, Kent, Story and Others.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Feb. 26, 1888
To the Editor of the Brooklyn Eagle:
Would the child of an American Minister to the Court of St. James, London, born in London during the service of said Minister, be a citizen of the United States in the sense of being eligible to the Presidency? Signed Cox.
Answer: Substantially the same question was answered in the EAGLE a few weeks ago, when we took occasion to present the views and points on the same subject which have been frequently set forth in the columns of the Journal of Commerce. We answered the question in the negative. Now, the query comes again. The difficulty which seems to present itself to those who attempt to study out the Constitutional provision for the Presidency — both learned and unlearned in the law, is: What is meant by a natural born citizen? The Constitution of the United States is history as well as law on the subject:
“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any persons be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
At the beginning of the government of the United States it is clear that a person not born on the soil, a person not a natural born citizen, could be President of the United States, provided he was 35 years of age, and had resided in the country for fourteen years. Commentators have been very shy of giving this phrase, “natural born citizen,” a definition. So we find it passed by as if every person knew what it meant. The question sent to the Eagle by “Cox” is just this: “What does a natural born citizen mean?” The State Department at Washington calls this a “hypothetical case;” hence it may be inferred that the Secretary of State has not arrived at any conclusion or adopted any standard of belief regarding what constitutes a “natural born citizen.”
We tried to find in Morse, on Citizenship, some light on the question, with the following outcome:
A natural born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. The Constitution does not make the citizens: it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. The expression “natural born citizen” recognized and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and is as old as political society–that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. Page 125, section 90.
We also wrote to the author of the work quoted from Alexander Porter Morse, Esq., Washington, and received a very courteous and prompt reply as follows:
Undoubtedly he would; [be eligible to the Presidency] provided the father was (as I infer the question in the shape in which it is put assumes), 1. a citizen of the United States, and 2., is not within the exception of the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. at Large, 604) which is “that the right of (American) citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States.”
The true rule may be thus expressed: “The child of an American citizen is an American citizen [by birth].” The place of birth is immaterial. Of the former tests of citizenship, the place of birth and the nationality of the father. The United States has given in her adhesion to the latter, as have several Continental States. National character as incident to birth in a particular locality, was the creature of feudal times and of vassalage, and was described as the jus soli [Latin: right of the soil]; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis [Latin: right of blood].
The child in the question above suggested is an American citizen by birth as a result of parentage; and the child of any other American father, although in private station, born in London or elsewhere in a foreign country, would be equally a citizen of the United States by birth as a result of parentage; and so far as citizenship is concerned, would be eligible to the Presidency, unless he came within the exceptions mentioned.
This is the modern, contemporary American doctrine on the subject. There is today no serious claim of “a double nationality.” Reciprocally, the courts of last resort in the United States have held that the children of aliens born in the United States are aliens by birth; and they can only become citizens of the United States by complying with provisions of the law of the land. In the Slaughter House Cases (15? Wallace, p. 36) the Supreme Court declared that the qualification, subject to the jurisdiction in Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of other countries born in the United States.” As to those the accident of place of birth exercises no influence. They are born citizens of the country of the parents.
In the case stated by you it is not, in my opinion, necessary to invoke the principle of international law or the rule of the comity of States, by virtue of which the residence of a foreign minister is treated or regarded as “constructively,” and for all practical purposes, the territory of the State the minister represents.
Mr. Morse has also favored us with the copy of an article which he addressed to the Boston Pilot on this subject May 1, 1884, in which he takes the affirmative. In the body of this article Mr. Morse says: “In the United States the children of American citizens born abroad are themselves citizens of the United States (Act of Congress, February 10, 1855). They are constituted such by virtue of their parents, and if so, are they not natural born citizens?”
A note containing the question at the head of this article was addressed to United States Senator William M. Evarts, in answer to which that gentleman replied as follows:
Washington, D.C.,
February 18, 1888
My own opinion is that a child born under the circumstances stated by you would be eligible to the Presidency of the United States.
I am yours very truly,
Wm. M. Evarts
The New York Herald last Sunday made the assertion broadly that “A child born abroad of American parents is in law a native born American citizen and, if a male, eligible to the Presidency.” This decision is based upon a course of reasoning rather than in accordance with law, for, preceding the assertion, is this statement: “There may be those who first see the light in this country who are not citizens–children of foreign ministers, for example. Born at Washington, they are citizens of England or Germany or whatever country their father represents. Parentage as well as place of birth is to be considered in determining the citizenship of children born either within or without the United States.”
This reasoning would be successful if the laws of other nations governed in the United States, but they do not, and that is just the point where we discover that we must ???ad the solution of our problem not in any treatise or commentary upon international law or upon the laws of other nations, but must look to some of our own authorities for light. It will not hurt us therefore to look where Daniel Webster looked. Every time the question has come to the EAGLE we have decided that the son of an American citizen, whether official or not, born abroad, is not eligible to the Presidency.
In the EAGLE of November 27, 1887, the same ground was taken and we cited the statement made in the Journal of Commerce of May 28, 18?3. In the same paper of October 17, 1886 we find that the editor cited as an authority one of Daniel Webster’s favorites, Paschal, the highest authority in the interpretation of the United States Constitution, who defines “a natural born citizen” as one “not made by law or otherwise but born.” “The Constitution does not make the citizens, it is in fact, made by them. It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural borne born and provides by law for the naturalization of such as are foreign born. It should be observed here, says Mr. David M. Stone, that “every writer of any note who has undertaken to discuss the subject has divided all who are entitled to be called citizens into two classes – those who are homeborn and those who are made citizens by law.”
Bates on Citizenship, 10 op., 382, limits the “natural” members of the body politic to “the people born in the country,” and he repeats this, confining the meaning to “every person born in the country.” Kent says “nativity furnishes as the rule.” Story, on the Constitution, says: “Considering the ages of all such (i.e. those who are alien born and citizens when the Constitution was adopted), no person of foreign birth can now ever be President of the United States under this Constitution.”
The learning and the respectability of such authorities will not be challenged by lawyers at least. In what follows, the reader will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that, outside of the laws of other nations, and considerations of international ?comity, the Constitution of the United States has settled the question of who is eligible to the Presidency, and that the Statutes at Large have taken cognizance of the accident of birth abroad of the child of any American citizen and made him a citizen of the United States, and that if the statute failed to do so the aforesaid child would not be a citizen. This is admitted by those who affirm that a child so born is eligible to the Presidency, for they cite the law and give us the date of its enactment. Of course, any law of this sort would be superfluous, if the right by birth and parentage was paramount by the terms of the Constitution. We quote the following from the Journal of Commerce:
It may be asked by those who have not examined the subject if the children born abroad of American citizens are not themselves citizens by right of birth, and therefore within the meaning of “natural born?” We answer most positively that they are not citizens by right of birth, but are made citizens by the law. The existing law was passed April 14, 1892, and is entitled “An Act to establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” and this provided that “the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, being under the age of 21 years, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens: and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.” If the latter are natural born citizens, then allow children who are under age when their parents are naturalized, are also natural born citizens. Both are made citizens because their parents are citizens, but they are made by law in virtue of their birth, and are not natural born.
If anything further was necessary to confirm this view, it may be found in the fact that a child born in Europe of an American citizen who has never resided here is excluded by the very section which confers the title already quoted. All other children born abroad of American parents are citizens of the United States by virtue of the Naturalization law. It may not be out of place to add that an attempt was made in Congress to give to the Constitution the meaning insisted upon by some of our contemporaries or else the language was used by inadvertence. In the Act of March 26, 1790, it was provided that “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens;“but this was coupled with the provision that “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States,” showing that the phrase “considered as natural born citizens” meant merely” to be treated as such because of this law.”
Great exception was taken to the language as misleading, and on January 25, 1795, this was repealed in express terms and a new act adopted, which read, “Shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” thus making the proviso forbidding the privilege to the children of citizens who had not resided here consistent with it. For if a child of an American citizen born abroad is without any legislation a natural born citizen, then no provision of statute could deprive him of that birth-right as long as he is innocent of crime.
Enough has been brought forward to safely guide the reflective reader. We may regret that Mr. Evarts did not suggest some points or references but he has, doubtless, been over the ground to his own satisfaction. The Herald assumes to be oracular without affording any grounds for the faith. Do adhere to our former answers to the question. — that the child of an American citizen, born abroad, without regard to the station of his father, is not eligible to the Presidency of the United States, because he is not “a natural born citizen, but merely a citizen made so by the law. We close by stating that Paschal, and all other high authorities, are clear that only a citizen born in the allegiance of the United States, i.e., either on its soil, or on the high seas under its flag, is a natural born citizen.
Bridgette
itooktheredpill
Miri
newssleuth
We the People of the United States 
Bridgette, this is a tour de force! Great post. All readers should appreciate the insight your research provides into prevailing opinion about the meaning of natural born citizenship, during the 19th century, an unprecedented period of immigration into this country.
Not surprisingly, the opinions varied, which is why this issue must be, once and for all, determined by the SCOTUS or at least clearly spelled out through an amendment to the Constitution which defines “natural born citizen.”
As this topic relates to Obama, of course, all depends upon KNOWING the circumstances of his birth: parentage, citizenship of each parent, place of birth, what citizenship(s) he had AT BIRTH, what allegiance he was BORN INTO, etc.
Some items are known FACTS, which already prove his ineligibility:
Obama AT BIRTH was a British subject.
Obama later also became a Kenyan citizen.
Still later, Obama became an Indonesian citizen.
How do we know these facts? The much vaunted FactCheck representatives, those in-the-know folks who are the only persons besides Obama’s campaign staff to have seen the “original” paper document known as the COLB, have said so on their website.
Since FactCheck is also an arm of the Annenberg Foundation, with which Obama himself was once associated, and since FactCheck is routinely (even in court cases!) cited as arbiters of TRUTH, who are we to argue with their pronouncement that President Obama WAS indeed a British subject as well as a Kenyan citizen? See their article:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Several interesting turns of phrase and parsing therein, which we can go into later.
In the last instance, Indonesian citizenship–that was noted upon his school registration in Indonesia, for attendance at a public school which required Indonesian citizenship. It’s been learned that the Indonesian government routinely CHECKED into the citizenship of attendees. Special cards were required to prove citizenship. Therefore, it’s logical to assume that Obama’s adoptive father Lolo Soetoro obtained the required paperwork that proved to the Govt. of Indonesia that his son was qualified to attend their public schools.
Again, Bridgette: Great work.
This is real food for thought. One thing I hadn’t paid attention to before is the use of the word “natural” in the definitions, i.e. “natural born” and “naturalized.” My father achieved citizenship by being “natural born” to American parents in California. My mother was foreign born to citizens of another country and chose to become a “naturalized” American citizen after she had lived here a few years, was married and had a son. My brother I believe, was a US citizen from birth, born in California, with an American father and foreign born mother who was not yet naturalized. I was born in NY some time after my mother’s naturalization.
I wonder what other countries call it when one becomes a citizen. I doubt that the word “natural” features in their legal procedures, but am not certain.
Just goes to show how important all the circumstances are. So your brother might not be considered natural born because both of your parents weren’t citizens at the time of his birth. (This also rules out Bobby Jindal for eligibility. He was born here but neither parent was a citizen at the time. That would seem to make him born into whatever citizenship/allegiance his parents held. He’s an anchor baby. Anchor babies are ineligible for the presidency.)
But you most definitely are natural born and thus eligible to be POTUS. It appeared that they made a distinction between “common citizenship” and “natural born citizenship.”
Common citizenship would include those born abroad to a U.S. citizen FATHER (per that 1855 law, but perhaps now modified to TWO U.S. citizens or maybe only a U.S. citizen mother?) but that person, while being a citizen, would not be eligible for POTUS because of being born abroad.
Common citizenship would also include naturalized citizens, and persons born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents (aka anchor babies).
Note that NO law passed by Congress can change the requirements of the Constitution. Nor did the 14th amendment, which addressed common citizenship, change the Constitution’s POTUS eligibility requirements. Only a Constitutional amendment can change those requirements.
Native citizen is not equal to natural born citizen. Native citizen can be the same as common citizen. A natural born citizen is a native citizen, but not all native citizens are natural born citizens.
Bottom line: A person eligible for the presidency must be born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents. Most certainly, that person can NEVER have been in the allegiance of another country. Most certainly, a person born a BRITISH SUBJECT is ineligible for the presidency.
I’ve always thought that the word “natural” referred to “Natural Law”… i.e., the Law of Nature.
A “natural born citizen” is a citizen by Natural Law, as opposed to man-made law. A “naturalized” citizen is a citizen by man-made law. The 14th Amendment is man-made law.
Vattel gave us the definition of a citizen by Natural Law. Vattel’s book was titled:
and Vattel said:
Please see my post:
George Washington, John Jay, and Vattel’s Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”
Our founders used Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as a principal reference work when writing the Constitution. Vattel define’s “natural born citizen” as ” a person born in the country to parents (plural) who are citizens of the country.” It cannot get much plainer than that.
Ben Franklin wrote a letter to his friend Charles Dumas thanking him for his copy of Vattel and claiming that it was in considerable use in the “raising of this nation.” (by which he obviously meant writing the Constitution).
IN addition, Senator John A Bingham…. a principal author of the 14th Amendment said on the Senate floor as recorded in the Globe….. that ” any person born in the United States to parents owing no allegiance to any foreign soverignty… is in the language of the Constitution, a natural born citizen.”
By these strong references coupled with the excellent ones provided in this webpage……. and by virtue simply of Barack Hussein Obama’s Father’s Brittish citizenship…… no matter where he was born…… he was a Brittish citizen…… and possible had dual citizenship if born in the USA, but ……
HE was not nor ever can be a “natural born citizen” of the USA…… NBC is acquired ONLY by the circumstances of one’s birth. Those circumstances being :
1. Citizenship of the parents
2. Place of Birth
Obama FAILS to qualify on circumstance of birth item 1. Citizenships of parents….. THEREFORE….. his place of birth NO LONGER MATTERS.
Excellent point. You are indeed a word warrior! Occam’s Razor applies once again.
Of course, there are always those who choose to obfuscate and argue otherwise. They falsely claim that birth on U.S. soil is all that matters (although in Obama’s case, there’s no proof of WHERE he was born, whether U.S. soil, the sovereign nation of Hawaii, Kenya, Canada, or anywhere else in America, given the HDoH’s odd claim that he is a “natural born AMERICAN citizen.”)
Allegiance is what matters. At birth, Obama was (and he has admitted to being) a British subject. Later a Kenyan citizen. Therefore, he held allegiance to at least two other nations. Disqualified, per the words of our Founders who wrote the Constitution.
If that doesn’t convince anyone, then the clause that grandfathered in those citizens at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution who were obviously not born into the allegiance of the U.S. (considering that they could not be, since it did not yet exist) ought to drive home the point.
“A natural born citizen is one born on the soil, within the allegiance of the United States, and not one who is made a citizen by law.”
So any person made a common citizen by virtue of that 1855 law (which excludes anyone whose father was never a permanent resident) in any case CANNOT be a natural born citizen because Congress passed this law specifically to bestow citizenship status upon him/her.
In other words, prior to that law, these person were not considered U.S. citizens. This law “made” them citizens. Common citizens, not natural born citizens.
Obama’s case is interesting, given that not only was his father never a permanent resident of the U.S. but also NEVER a U.S. citizen, his mother may possibly never have met residency requirements herself, despite her (arguable) status as a U.S. citizen from birth.
I say arguable because it’s yet to be proven who his birth mother was, given that no long-form birth certificate has ever been presented to any entity qualified to verify its authenticity.
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Dunham spent more years living in Indonesia and elsewhere in the world than she ever did living in the USA. No one knows where she was for large periods of time during her childhood and early adulthood. It’s known that she prevaricated on paperwork concerning how long she resided in particular areas.
She hopscotched around the world. This raises the intriguing question of how Maya could have been listed on the divorce papers as a U.S. citizen. Maya was born in Indonesia to an Indonesian citizen father. How then could she possibly be a U.S. citizen unless her mother had her naturalized? Is this possible? Can a child be naturalized in another country by one parent, especially a parent who resides abroad, probably permanently? Will the U.S. naturalize a child who is a citizen of another country, who resides in another country with her foreign citizen father (at times), without that father’s express permission? If the child is born an Indonesian citizen, in a country that does not recognize dual citizenship, then is that child also an American citizen, solely by virtue of the once-citizenship of an expatriot parent? Remember, too, that shortly after the divorce in which SAD claimed Maya was a U.S. citizen, Maya was packed off to attend an exclusive school in JAKARTA.
A tangled web, to be sure.
Very nice work!
Thank you so much. I suggest that everyone read the following:
Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born”
By Teo the Bear
October 8, 2010 Snips
This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of ‘naturel’ in 1781, predates John Jay’s 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/10/pay-attention-obots-absolute-proof.html
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Above is the text of the 14th Amendment that applies to citizenship. Note that it addresses CITIZENSHIP, not natural born citizenship or eligibility for the presidency. It lumps together naturalized citizens with persons born in the US, disregarding the citizenship of the parents, and further codifies that no STATE can change the citizenship status of so-defined individuals.
All this amendment did was to define common citizenship, not natural born citizenship. It did not change in any way the requirements for the office of the presidency.
The key phrase is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. No person who is born a citizen or subject of another country can be solely born within the jurisdiction of the USA.
A note to new readers who want to comment: You will not be let out of purgatory (aka moderation) until you learn to not insult your hosts, to not slyly or not so slyly imply that they are racist, to not bring up irrelevant issues, to not obfuscate, and to address the issues instead of using Alinsky tactics to derail discussion. Got it? Let’s see if you do.
In addition, known trolls from Arlington will not get through, so don’t waste your figurative breath.
Third time’s the charm. 🙂
btw, Spiro Agnew’s parents were both citizens when he was born in the USA. Just sayin’.
Wonderful recap re natural born citizen issue. Well done, Bridgette.
I’m actually surprised, in this day and age, that this issue is even a question. When I was a young child, all of the military knew the “natural born citizen” requirement for presidential eligibility was defined as being born on U.S. soil to parents who are themselves U.S. citizens.
Media, o & co., et. al. have deliberately MISLED the american people into believing o is qualified for the position of President of the United States of America DESPITE the fact that his father was not a U.S. Citizen.
They have successfully made fools of the american people — and for that, they pat themselves on the back — evil.
Terrific research, thank you SO much! I’ve sent this forward to Kerchner and Apuzzo. Good work!
Hi Kate ! We missed you here .
Thanks so much Kate! I appreciate your forwarding this to Mario Apuzzo and Charles Kerchner. It is amazing that this information from 130 years ago is so pertinent now regarding our selected pResident and his opponent as well. These examples add validation to what we have been discussing and publicizing for the last couple years.
Bridgette, I didn’t realize these articles hadn’t already been presented in previous discussions! Fantastic research Bridgette!
I’ve sent it on to Leo Donofrio.
KUDOS! Great article, it hits at the heart of the issue which was the British feudal law that was still in place all over the world that forced subjectship onto children born to foreigners while travelling in/thru British Territory. But what is also great is ALL make the claim that BOTH parents must be US citizens. There could be no dual allegiance at birth. ‘O’ bummer for ‘O’bummer. The truth will come out someday, hopefully sooner rather than later.
The ‘Indian Citizenship Act of 1924″ is proof that simply being born in the U.S. does not qualify a person as a natural-born citizen. Congress conferred U.S. citizenship on Native Americans born in the U.S. because it wasn’t automatic. In other words, U.S. citizenship wasn’t a ‘natural’ consequence of having been born in the U.S., it was granted through legislation. In fact, citizenship wasn’t automatically granted even if a Native American was born in the U.S. if their parentage meant they had other tribal and property rights.
“Congress took what some saw as the final step on June 2, 1924 and granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States.”
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0700/stories/0701_0146.html
There can be no legal definition for ‘natural born citizenship’ because it is not a legally granted status of citizenship. It happens naturally. Therefore, being born in the U.S. alone, does not make a person a natural-born citizen if Congress had to pass a law declaring U.S. born Native Americans are U.S. citizens.
“The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 proclaimed:
“BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)”
Just as an example, an individual born in the U.S. to a Cherokee citizen mother and a U.S. citizen father is not a U.S. citizen let alone a natural-born citizen according to the ‘“The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.’
Congress has recognized that ‘born on the soil’ is not enough to confer U.S. citizenship.
“In a further complication, tribes determine the citizenship of a Native American according to his or her mother. A child born to a Freedman mother is considered a Freedman, even if the father is a full Cherokee or Seminole.”
http://blogs.kentlaw.edu/islat/2008/12/should-native-american-identity-be-based-on-genetics.html
CORRECTION, that should read:
“Congress has recognized that ‘born on the soil’ TO AT LEAST ONE PARENT WHO IS A U.S. CITIZEN, is not enough to confer U.S. citizenship.”
Sorry to go on and on–in case it isn’t obvious, I’d like to state that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868.
Congress has recognized since that time that an individual ‘born on the soil’ to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, is not necessarily a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural born citizen, when they passed ‘The Indian Citizenship Act’ in 1924.
Thank you, MissTickly. I figured that you, if nobody else, would have looked into these issues. You answered some questions we had and raised some interesting new ones.
If a LAW was required to make specific individuals into citizens, then prior to that law, those persons were NOT considered citizens of the U.S.A.
Therefore, the “original intent” of the Founders, who wrote the Constitution and specified “natural born citizen” as a key qualification for the presidency, MUST have been that those persons were NOT considered by them to be even common, much less natural born, citizens.
What holds true for Native Americans (aka American Indians) must also hold true for Native Hawaiians. They also are born into the allegiance of a sovereign nation, perhaps one even more “sovereign” than mainland Indian nations. The Hawaiians were not relegated to reservations. Their history differs.
Thanks for pointing out the timing of the 14th amendment. Since these discussions about natural born citizenship that Bridgette found took place, for the most part, after the 14th amendment was ratified and since these writers barely mention the 14th amendment, one can logically infer that it was considered by these scholars and journalists to be irrelevant with regard to eligibility for the presidency.
In fact, it was meant to protect recently emacipated slaves from being denied citizenship rights by the STATES within which they lived. It had nothing to do with changing the requirements for eligibility to the presidency. One might surmise that the issue wasn’t even considered: emancipated slaves, made citizens by LAW, were NOT eligible for the presidency in the first place, because they weren’t citizens AT BIRTH. They were made “common citizens” not natural born citizens.
One mention of the 14th amendment is found in the Feb. 26, 1888 issue of the Eagle, which presented this argument [emphasis added]:
“There is today NO SERIOUS CLAIM of ‘a double nationality.’ Reciprocally, the courts of last resort [SCOTUS] in the United States have held that the children of ALIENS born in the United States ARE ALIENS BY BIRTH; and they can only become citizens of the United States by complying with provisions of the law of the land. In the Slaughter House Cases (15? Wallace, p. 36) the Supreme Court declared that the qualification, SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION in Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment, was INTENDED TO EXCLUDE ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens [exchange students, e.g.?] of other countries born in the United States.’ As to those the accident of place of birth exercises no influence. They are BORN citizens of the country of the parents.”
Obama has admitted that he was born a British subject and later became a Kenyan citizen. In addition, his school registration proves that while in Indonesia, that government recognized him as an INDONESIAN citizen. Therefore, if the birth “facts” he has presented are true, Obama is INELIGIBLE for the presidency.
The article further states:
“This decision is based upon a course of reasoning rather than in accordance with law . . .’PARENTAGE AS WELL AS PLACE OF BIRTH is to be considered in determining the citizenship of children born either within or without the United States.’ . . . we must [locate] the solution of our problem not in any treatise or commentary upon INTERNATIONAL law or upon the laws of other nations, but must look to some of OUR OWN AUTHORITIES for light. . . . EVERY TIME the question has come to the EAGLE we have decided that the son of an American citizen, whether official or not, born abroad, is not eligible to the Presidency.”
If Obama was born on any soil that was not part of the USA (not part of ANY other nation) then again, he is INELIGIBLE for the presidency, as was, apparently, John McCain.
Obama, show us those “original vital records” so that We the People can determine your status once and for all.
On a hilarious but related note: Recently Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs asserted that the Chamber of Commerce MUST be guilty of funneling illegal foreign money into Republican campaigns because they won’t be transparent and disclose the records. “If there are organizations raising tens of millions of dollars who won’t tell us who their donors are, my guess is they’re not telling us for a reason: BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE,” said Gibbs [emphasis added].
On the same subject, WH advisor David Axelrod recently told Jake Tapper: “I guess my answer to the Chamber is just disclose where your money is coming from and THAT WILL END ALL THE QUESTIONS. . . . WHAT ARE THEY HIDING that they don’t want the American people to see. . . It’s not proving a negative, Jake, because all you have to do to clear up the questions is REVEAL who your donors are from. The question back to them is WHY DON’T THEY WANT TO REVEAL where their money is coming from? [emphasis added]”
The money quote from Axelrod: “[W]hy not simply say? What is it that is SO NEFARIOUS [emphasis added] about the sources of their money that they won’t reveal it?”
To his credit, Tapper compared this topic to the hidden birth certificate. To his DIScredit, he called those of us who ask to see the long-form birth certificate “whackjobs.” Axelrod ignored the question, because Tapper’s transcript shows no response.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/axelrod-to-us-chamber-what-are-you-hiding-that-you-dont-want-the-american-people-to-see.html
Several friends told me that Limbaugh and Hannity raised the BC issue recently on their radio shows. This morning, I heard a local radio host similarly compare this smear against the Chamber of Commerce to the issue of transparency with regard to ALL of Obama’s missing documents, including his birth certificate. This is a mainstream media station. Maybe the gloves are finally coming off.
So there you have it: By the Gibbs/Axelrod Transparency Doctrine, Obama MUST be guilty of ineligibility for the presidency because all he has to do to clear up the question is to SHOW THE ORIGINAL VITAL RECORDS. What’s so NEFARIOUS about them that they continue to HIDE them from We the People–those Americans that Gibbs and Axelrod claim deserve to know the TRUTH?
MissTickly,
Good to see you here again.
I have a question for you. When you deleted your blog, WordPress deleted the posts. Do you still have the material that you once posted on your blog?
Some of it, are you looking for comments or content?
In my post Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?, I link to posts on both your site and Leo Donofrio’s site. Unfortunately, both of you have taken your original posts offline, so those links are now dead links.
One link in particular is http://misstickly.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/our-worst-nightmare-confirmed/
A few people saved some of the content along with comments, you could redirect your link here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/20611487/Miss-Tickly-Our-Worst-Nightmare-Confirmed
OR, I can provide you a pdf for that story, although it would not include comments….
Thank you, MissTickly.
Some nations have no land or land boundaries, and so citizenship is passed only through family. Obama is a member of the Luo tribe through both his father and grandfather. The Luo seem to be having a similar argument on their end as to where Obama’s primary allegiance lies:
“Taabu, DO YOU or DO YOU NOT agree with me, that much as it is right to be proud of Obama as a man of Luo heritage in the most powerful office on earth, he is first and foremost an American, and that he owes his loyalty FIRST to America? OR, do you agree with those who claim that he owes his loyalty FIRST to the Luo Nation, courtesy of his heritage? ”
http://kumekucha.blogspot.com/2008/11/barack-obama-wins-historic-2008-us.html
Indeed, this is a good example of why our Founders required that the President be a “natural born citizen”, so that the Commander in Chief of our entire military would never have a conflict of loyalty to another country.
This is the equivelent of Kenya filing an amicus brief stating his allegiences were more to the Luo nation. This is really good information and should be included in the supreme court case as to why it is so important to be NBC.
Bridgette, I’ve been a bit busy and am just seeing this now. It will take me some time to digest it all, but this is excellent research. For well over 100 years, people have been asking the same questions we’ve been asking. The Supreme Court absolutely needs to settle this once and for all, and the two justices appointed by Obama must recuse themselves from the case. (Those justices have a conflict of interest… if Obama is found ineligible, then any appointments made by him while he usurped the office of President are null and void… meaning those justices would have to be removed from the Court and could not return unless re-n0minated by the new President and re-confirmed by the new Senate.)
That’s good news. 🙂
It appears that this eligibility issue is gonna get its day in court. It’s about time.
http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/judge-grants-request-to-file?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A2831640
greg: Do you have any background on this? I read the man’s brief and it seems as if he asked Obama to prove his eligibility (somehow) and received no response. So he sent a certified letter to Obama and in the letter warned that no response would be taken as a tacit admission of ineligibility which he would then file in a court of law. Since (who’s surprised?) he heard nothing back from Obama, he did turn around and file this brief, which is his opinion that Obama tacitly admitted, by failing to respond, the he is indeed ineligible. That much I think I get. But what’s the legal background? Do you know of a link to the case history? Can something like this carry weight with the court? I hope so, but we’ve been disappointed so many times with judges and courts that I don’t want to put too much faith in this one. I’m heartened, however, that people are actually suing BECAUSE policies of this POTUS ARE directly damaging their lives and property. In this man’s case, if I understand it correctly, he’s arguing that Obamacare will directly impact the return on his investments. Do I read that right?
What’s interesting is that so often the Obamabots cite the 1790 law that stated children born overseas to U.S. citizens are natural born citizens, but neglect to tell everyone that the law was changed to read merely “citizens,” removing the “natural born” modifier:
“January 25, 1795, this was repealed in express terms and a new act adopted, which read, “Shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” thus making the proviso forbidding the privilege to the children of citizens who had not resided here consistent with it. For if a child of an American citizen born abroad is without any legislation a natural born citizen, then no provision of statute could deprive him of that birth-right as long as he is innocent of crime.”
Miri, check thi article out. This guy is allowed to add his motion with the others that are some heavy hitters. This paragraph stands out
“On September 21, 2010, Judge Hudson granted Mr. Connerat’s motion to file an Amicus Curiae brief to be included in the Virginia lawsuit along with many others filed by interested parties, including Physician Hospitals of America, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and the American Civil Rights Union”.
Ed Meese has some pull, and maybe adding the eligibilty issue in with this motion might get us our day in court. All we can do is pray.
Greg, see my questions to you a couple comments above. What’s the relationship of Meese to this?
Obama’s accuser files brief in Va. health care lawsuit
Sept. 23, 2010 Snips
RICHMOND, Va. (Legal Newsline) – The Florida man who accused President Barack Obama of treason has gotten involved in Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s challenge to federal health care reform.
William Spencer Connerat filed a three-page amicus brief in Cuccinelli’s lawsuit Tuesday that says the health care reform package is unlawful because the man who signed it into law, Obama, is not qualified to do so.
Earlier this year, Connerat alleged Obama is guilty of treason because he is not qualified to be president. Connerat has requested Obama prove that he was born in the United States, but Obama has not responded. Connerat claims the non-response is “a recorded admission of ineligibility.”
U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss Cuccinelli’s case, and the two sides are currently arguing over each others’ motions for summary judgment.
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/228834-obamas-accuser-files-brief-in-va.-health-care-lawsuit
barky’s a fraud and there are very few people in this entire World who are not aware.
The heat is on.
Where’s the Birth Certificate male Unknown Dunham?
From you lips, Papoose, to God’s ears. I pray every day and night that you are correct.
Watching Chile liberate their trapped citizens one by one.
Misty and nostagically sentient. I remember America back in the day.
God. Country. Family at the Heart and Hearth. Communion, not Community.
Saluting Chile and their admirable National Pride. Congratulations and sincere Admiration for all times.
Gulf of Mexico was attacked, the natives poisoned, Arizona boycotted, sued by their Government and investigated by the UN and secret deals made with the Owners of South America. The West Coast filled to the gills with commie, eccentric elected officials, Samoan tuna, sports figures, music mogels. and of course, gigantic studios for scripted TV and Propaganda for Profit Movies on fake sets with fake people with fake body parts from head to toe. An Austrian Republican body-builder dopey and doped Terminator Governor married to the Bostonian Irish Catholic whose Uncle passed the baton to the Daleys’ bestowed upon that pos Rahm** legalizing marijuana for a buck to dumb down the cool children. The East Coast is filled with a State run 4th Estate, their cocktail parties and book deals and the relentless public licking of the puppet and his boss, the goon. Buffoon and Goon, hand in glove, the Muslamics and NOI saturating our every corridor breathing down our necks.
Other than that, its all good. While the Gulf of Mexico obliterates everything it has ever touched, barly golfs, vacations, balls, pontificates and campaigns lying through his purple lips. He’s gonna kick ass, oh, you missed that…..
** pos Rahm, Daly’s heir… check out his brothers. Hollywood.
~
Valerie Jarrett: Question. When are you going to write your autobiographies – 2 at least are due. Dreams of My Parents in Iran. It will make a great movie along with all your City Hall tidbits. Your Daddy the Doctor and your Mommy the Early Educator did what for America? Come again? This is going to be a Blockbuster when it all comes out.
OK. I’ll be quiet now.
That was good, Papoose. I enjoyed every word of it, especially “pos Rahm” and “Dreams of My Parents”.
I thought the same thing last night, as I watched that miracle in Chile: They look like the country we USED TO BE. They have a president who solves problems instead of casting blame, instead of suing, instead of investigating, instead of putting a moratorium on ALL mining because he hates mining companies and capitalism in any form, instead of blaming the disaster on the previous administration. A president who was PRESENT to greet EVERYONE coming out of that mine. Who was PRESENT and accounted for. Who stayed, although he had to be bone tired, to greet the last rescuer (what a hero THAT guy is!) to come out of the mine. Did I mention that he’s a Christian?
Can we trade? Please?
Last but not least, Pinera appears to be a person who actually FEELS, who actually EMPATHIZES, who is capable of REAL emotion and regard for people other than HIMSELF.
They look like the country we USED TO BE. They have a president who solves problems instead of casting blame, instead of suing, instead of investigating, instead of putting a moratorium on ALL mining because he hates mining companies and capitalism in any form, instead of blaming the disaster on the previous administration. A president who was PRESENT to greet EVERYONE coming out of that mine. Who was PRESENT and accounted for. Who stayed, although he had to be bone tired, to greet the last rescuer (what a hero THAT guy is!) to come out of the mine. Did I mention that he’s a Christian?
Can we trade? Please?
Good one Miri !
Miri, CAN we trade ? Like Eddie Murphy in Trading places ? Can they switch clothes now ? On Friday you know ? when all the secret, shady,good stuff happens. Friday. Can you ask ? LOL ! This Friday would be fine.We could fit it in to the Friday Switcheroo Schedule maybe ? Can you ask Miri ? We need him, or someone that loves us like he loves his country. You are right. LOL !
Miri
I found this on Meese
http://projectvirginia.com/former-us-attorneys-general-back-cuccinelli-health-care-suit/
I found this that links the eligibitly issue with the healthcare motion.
What some guy watching college football has to do with this, I have no idea but will take what I can get to make a judge look at the eligibility issue.
Miri
I think what they are trying to do here is, by adding the eligibility issue to the unconstitutional healthcare complaint is adding more evidence of that the bill is unconstitutional because Obama is an unlawful president.
The football comment has got me stumped. If it helps, good! Hell I’d put anything in there if I had to. I’d put in there that the plaintiff is tired of eating burritos at taco bell and is producing bad flatulence and could the judge please look at it quickly so we can get him out of Taco bell. 🙂
Miri
I’m still looking into this and when I get more info I’ll link it here. I guess time will tell if this goes anywhere. It is refreshing seeing it somehow getting thrown into the Virginia complaint.
greg: Thanks. I think I know what’s going on now. I didn’t realize this had to do with the Virginia lawsuit against Obamacare. The football comment is just that guy’s way of being cute, I guess, although it doesn’t seem to help his cause. It may or may not make the judge smile.
His point seems to be that he’s personally injured by Obamacare via its effect on his investments. He says Obama didn’t respond to a letter asking Obama to prove his eligibility, so his non-response is a tacit admission by Obama that he is ineligible. He warned Obama that if he makes such a tacit admission (by not refuting the contention that he’s not eligible) then he will submit to the court a brief documenting that Obama admits that he’s ineligible.
We need a lawyer to tell us whether this makes sense or not. I don’t know what he sent Obama and I don’t know if Obama was required by law to respond to the man’s letter. But the judge did allow him to file the brief. What that means, I don’t know, either.
Amazing research Bridgette. Here is more excellent research on the issue of NBC from FreeRepublic.com
I hope this also helps in regards to the understanding / requirements of an NBC –
Comment 84
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term “Natural Born Citizen” (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic.
Who, or “what” constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison’s notes of the Convention.The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: “Des citoyens et naturels”
To English: “Citizens and natural”
French text (about citizens): “Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages.”
——————-
To English: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages.”
————————————————————
French text (about “natural” born citizens): “Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens”
——————-
To English, gives this: “the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens”
Prior to the Constitution
“This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty’s notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel’s exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience.”
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson’s Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled “Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations.”
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: “On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations…” This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the “Law of Nature & Nations” section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America’s 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 “footnotes” in Jefferson’s Biography, from Yale.
After the Constitution
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well…some examples:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term “Natural Born Citizen” can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Prior to Jay’s famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison (“father” of the Constitution) to Jay:
“James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and “Vattel’s Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.[29]”
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America’s Founding Fathers.
Vattel’s Law of Nations, built upon “natural law – which has it’s roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
“This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original” (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law.”
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) “that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens”
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can’t do that. Congress (by itself) doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the term “Natural Born Citizen.” Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
It’s interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a “Natural Born Citizen” because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: “Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'”. Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
John Bingham, “father” of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”
The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory (& thus jurisdiction) of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).
84 posted on Friday, April 23, 2010 10:10:17 AM by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’S STATUS BE “GOVERNED” BY GREAT BRITAIN? – Leo Donofrio (2009))
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499048/posts?q=1&;page=51
————————————————————
To: Kleon
And when the State of Hawaii said it’s a valid document, were they in on this conspiracy, too? The State of Hawaii has never verified the document posted on the internet is valid.
85 posted on Friday, April 23, 2010 10:11:50 AM by Las Vegas Ron (“Because without America, there is no free world” – Canada Free Press – MSM, where are you?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499048/posts?q=1&;page=51
“Natural Born free Citizens” Journal of Continental Congress, 11 Nov 1777
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2500319/posts
Step 1: Get the vital records and prove the “Obama birth narrative” either true or false.
Step 2a: If the “Obama birth narrative” is proven false, then at best he has committed fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice. If born in Hawaii to two U.S. Citizen parents, he would be a natural born citizen and therefore Constitutionally eligible, but he would also guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. If born on non-U.S. soil, then he wasn’t even born a U.S. Citizen, let alone a natural born Citizen, because his mother was too young to pass citizenship on to him by the laws of that time.
Step 2b: If the “Obama birth narrative” is proven true, then we proceed to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the Constitutional definition of “natural born Citizen”, and see whether or not Obama, under that definition, qualifies to hold the office of President.
It’s important to do Step 1 NOW, because if Abercrombie is elected Governor of Hawaii, you can count on him altering/forging documents. He’s the one behind the hospital switch (from Queen’s Medical Center to Kapi’olani Medical Center).
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
Ewwww…Redpill, That would be Mrs. Sarah…….LOL !
Grrrrr…Mama Grizzly can open that door………Savor that thought…
The coolest story no ?
(clapping hands here in amusement !)
Either Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh could (and should) request the vital records. Sarah might fear political repercussions for doing so, but Rush shouldn’t….
It’s a matter of due diligence. “Mr. Transparency” has been anything but transparent on this matter, and it’s time for Rush to force some transparency (or have the State of Hawaii deny him, which would only bring even more attention to this cover-up).
The latest discovery from Ancestry.com shows that President Obama is related to conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, one of his most vocal critics.
You cannot make this stuff up !
(clapping here Redpill !) LOL !
Really a funny twist no ?
And to think, one smokes cigars the other cigarettes. One a Republican, the other ?????? The Odd Cousins? One a Christian, the other a member of TUCC who accepts all comers, both christian and Muslim, with a preacher who carries a Masters in the Islamic Religion. But the lady of the House knows who she is. She is the first cousin (once removed) of one Rabbi Capers Funnye (not as in ha-ha-ha but “fuh-NAY”) . I sort of wondered how “that One” secured the Jewish vote. Gads, sort of like marrying a citizen in order to dodge Ellis Island and/or swimmin the Rio.
“Funnye told the Forward that he has known Michelle Obama (born Michelle Robinson) all her life. His mother and her father, Frasier Robinson III, enjoyed a close relationship, and Funnye said he saw Michelle several times a year when they were growing up, mostly at family functions and on occasional visits to her house.”
“Her father was like the glue of our family,” Funnye said. “He always wanted to keep the family very connected and to stay in touch with each other.”
Funnye, 56, said he and Michelle, 44, were not especially close growing up, but he remembers her as “energetic and smart and very caring.
”http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/item/michelle_obama_related_to_black_rabbi_20080903/
The HGP (Human Genome Project) did say the research teams (Max Planck Institute) would wind up extracting more data on politics, religion, and other mental variations than it would diseases. That it would also be PC incorrect and embarrassing for governments, especially the USA, Britian, and others of the Western World to publish the HGP results. HMMMM. So Rush and Obama are premos?
I politely disagree on step 2a. He could never be a NBC because he chose BHO senior as his father.
I’m curious about your perspective on this… you’re saying that even if he were born in Hawaii and his biological father was Frank Marshall Davis, you would say that Obama is still not a NBC because he chose Barack Hussein Obama as his father?
In that scenario, I would be inclined to think that BHO II would be a NBC, but also guilty of fraud, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.
That’s an interesting point, tdr. It all depends upon what’s on that original long-form BC or whether at any point it was changed to make someone else the “father of record.”
If BHO Sr. isn’t his biological father but IS the legal father, then you’re correct: He’s not a NBC.
These are those grey areas that the SCOTUS might have to address some day. What about adopted children who were born overseas but adopted by U.S. citizens? Adopted children were probably never considered by the Founders or anyone else, because only recently did it become common for U.S. citizens to adopt foreign-born babies.
In the past, they would give an adopted baby a brand new BC, showing his adoptive parents AS IF they were the biological parents. Nobody would even know the kid wasn’t theirs. So if either of the biological parents wasn’t a citizen, or both weren’t, would that child be a NBC or not?
This may be why some of the powers-that-be leave this issue alone. Maybe they know the truth and the truth is that it’s not BHO Sr. but it IS a U.S. citizen, so legally he’s not a NBC but technically he is.
This is one theory that might make sense: Who in the opposing party (or even in his own party) wants to be the person who “outs” him, the first black president? He knows it. It’s his trump card. Nobody wants to go down in history as the one who got him tossed because of a “technicality.” He skates off because he knows he has them where he wants them. Otherwise, they’re racists. We would see him as a fraud, but would most everybody else? What would African-Americans think? Would they be angry at him or at the one who outed him?
The only problem with that is that since the HDOH knows who his real parents are and we don’t, they can deny Rush and Sarah on the basis of not having a common ancestor. 🙂
The HGP headquarters in Leipzig did say it would be embarrassing for the Western World to disclose the finding of their research teams. LOL!!!
Skeeter,
Human Genome Project (HGP) ???
Ladysforest says:
Hey people, have you seen this!!! I don’t know how true this is but it’s worth taking a look at. We might have another DeepThroat like Nixon did.
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/10/white-house-in-crisis/
Greg, I did read it earlier. Bet the booze is flowing tonight too. Wrestling starts later….Oozing out like mustard from a greasy hot dog….Nancy has her airline liquor leftovers. Val brought chips and dip.
Coals are hot Greg. Got burgers ?
The author of that piece, Wayne Madsen — isn’t that the same guy who wrote that bogus CIA story as a cover for o?
Sure is!
Ali, This story is viral and in other news I think. I am sure the job could make one depressed in the best of times, so maybe this author is correct in this assessment and information. Let’s play a fitting tune.
I guess only time will tell.
Check this out!!!The person who is doing this gives their reason why. If this is legit, a whole can of worms will be coming our way. I’m giving this to you all because I know you people will get to the bottom of this!
http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-politics/white-house-insider-what-the-hell-have-we-done/
Renee, I have chicken on the grill. No booze though but sure want to. What do you think? Do you think this is legit? I don’t know what to think at this point. I have read alot of this stuff in the past like, Larry Sinclair, ect but wasn’t too sure about it. This is some interresting stuff!
There is sure to be high stress there, even in a perfect situation Greg. I think there is always embelishment there too, but in this situation I have made it my motto to never say never now. Nothing surprises me at this point. Pasta here but no booze either. Spiced chi after dinner instead. This stuff to read is enough ! LOL !
Renee, I think with all the secrecy surrounding Obamas past and slowy coming out has got to have some insiders sweating. They might be thinking if this stuff gets out and they did nothing about it, they may be charged. You know how people like them are? They are like cockroaches, when the lights come on….they scatter. Nothing surprises me with this WH. The sad thing is that if they do try to remove him, there will be riots. A certain populatio of Americans will not except the 1st Black POTUS being removed. The Dems have to be the ones to to it. If the Repubs do, there wil be serious consequences. The dems created this Frankenstien. it’s their duty to save the country from him. The Rodney Kings riots will be childs play compaired to what we may be seeing. Perfect time for some martial law action. Maybe this was preplanned when he was chosen? Who knows, but one thing is for sure… they way he shits on Israel would cause them to look into his past. I always thought it would be Israel that would expose his past.
One thing is for sure, There are countries out there looking into his past for some political blackmail. That I can assure you.
I’m surprised the democrats and the media didn’t think of this when they decided to push this fraud onto the American people
Renee, remember…Rahm is an ex-IDF officer. He probably didn’t like what was happening to Israel or what is being planned to happen to Israel and his guy on the inside is leaking about the situation going on in the WH. This would not surprise me one bit!
This is the weakness in the Saul Alisky tactics, you make to many enemies.
One thing is for sure, the Dems are running scared!!!
And now for some fun.
Freepers Discussion and comments regarding the article above.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2606105/posts
Note..normal trolls are there diverting the discussion; the Dr. Conspiracy groupies. You can tell they didn’t read the newspaper articles nor absorb any information about natural born citizens. The questions and answers to citizens referenced words written by scholars of the time and those are the focus of the article.
I have noted that the Obots haven’t been here to disagree to the newspaper article or post their misrepresentations of natural born citizen that they have relied upon for the last couple years. It is difficult to deal with truth and history when it is right in front of their faces.
Wow! It’s been a while I have found some truly NEW material on the matter of the illegal alien in office. Great read, Bridgette!
I have been debating with a COMMENTER on one of my blogs at:
http://art2defenders.blogspot.com/2010/12/edward-c.html
It is an argument that I have been using for 2 years now…Attempting to explain it as the difference between ALIEN and NATURAL born babies. Any baby with an alien aspect to it, either from a parent or a place, then that is always and forever ALIEN tainted. However, if the birth is via two US CITIZENS and in the united States, then there can be no question of the NATUALNESS of the birth. One is where the law must give a birthright, and the second the birthright comes as NATURAL LAW.
Great blog post…and great comments thereafter as well!
Thanks so much for visiting Edward. Great to see that a true patriot who is willing to speak out for Ltc Lakin, and especially one that ran for office. I admire you for writing to Dr. Lakin everyday.
I wish there were more politicians that were willing to investigate the issue and clear up Obama’s ineligibility according to the Constitution. We pray that someone in the new Congress will finally do it. Otherwise, there were more cowards elected to office.
I read your letter to him on your blog. You are dealing with the notorious obot strauss who has 20 different aliases. I tried to make a comment but it said my identity didn’t belong to me on WordPress…What? I tried several times.
Welcome, Edward. I also read your blog entry. I once looked into the issue of Spiro Agnew’s natural born citizenship. I found his father’s WWI draft registration in the National Archives:
WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
Theodore Spiro Agnew
226 W. Madison St.
Baltimore City, Maryland
Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
Race White
NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
Occupation Restaurant
Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
Registrar’s report
Height medium
Hair black
Eyes black
Build stout
No disabilities
DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918
The 1910 census indicates that he was naturalized by the time that census was taken. His wife was born in the US and so was a US citizen from birth. Spiro Agnew was born in 1919; therefore, both his parents were US citizens when he was born, so he WAS a natural born citizen and thus eligible to become president, should it have become necessary.
SHAME ON THE STATE DEPARTMENT: The Mario Marroquin Story – How War Veterans and Other Citizens “Born In A House” Are Denied Passports Despite Having Birth Certificates.
In an act of unparalleled hypocrisy and disgrace, Obama’s Department of State continues to deny passports to some US citizens who were “born in a house” on US soil – and not in a hospital or other “appropriate medical facility” – despite the fact that they possess long form birth certificates featuring more factual proof of birth in the US than President Obama’s COLB.
Bridgette, I wasn’t sure as to which post I should place this link — if not the appropriate location, please place it per your preference.
Excellent Post and Research.
From Leo’s blog
The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility. Snips
March 12, 2011
You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President. Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune. These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News.
Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka “The People’s Lawyer“. (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the “People’s Lawyer” of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)
The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:
“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”
It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.
Bridgham further states:
“A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution. The very definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,”…I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning.”
(Link to full article. http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/boston-globe-1896-full1.jpg)
So, The People’s Lawyer (and the Boston Globe) can now be listed as “birthers”.
continued…
“Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways UPDATED with 2 Official Proclamations From The US Administration of 1859
March 17, 2011 A Comprehensive Read Snips
The one thing I have yet to find is a US law which specifically repealed the law of nations doctrine of transference of citizenship to children born in wedlock in a country where the father is a foreigner.
All the citizenship treaties between the US and foreign nations were written based on the laws of nature & nations. I have yet to find in the international laws, reference that a child who is born in wedlock to parents who are citizens of different nations receives the nationality of both parents. As far as I can find, the doctrine described above from the Library of Congress pertaining to children born in these cases, is still on the books but hidden rather good in the extensive codes that are hard to manuever through.
Common sense tells us that at some point these children will have to make a formal declaration as to which country they want to be a citizen of as an adult and it would require a formal renunciation of one of those citizenships they supposedly acquired. In my mind & from my understanding of the law, these children are really citizens of neither. They merely partake in the rights of their parents, the benefits & rights of which ever parent best suits their needs on any given particular day without having to show a complete and absolute allegiance to either nation.
NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US Govt Administration
NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US AG
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/
Commentary on the above
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2691202/posts
This is what stands out to me:
“Subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to ONLY the United States, either at birth or by naturalization. Children of foreigners, whether born here or abroad do not gain citizenship as a child until the parents themselves become citizens. This is the doctrine of citizenship through tacit consent that goes back to the time of Adam & Eve. Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation. 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. (Law of Nations Bk1, Chap 19, Sec. 212)
Native refers to soil, Natural refers to blood. To this there is no dispute in the laws of God, of Nature & of man. (Webster’s Dictionary for the US Constitution (1828) Vol 1 and Vol 2 per request by the US Congress). And although according to Title 8 of the US Code, natives may be Nationals, not all Nationals are US citizens and they certainly are not natural born citizens because under the color of the law, one can not pass naturally to their minor child by the law of tacit consent that which they themselves first do not possess.
End quote
I haven’t read the comments at Free Republic yet. This makes it clear that Barry was not subject to the SOLE jurisdiction of the US AT BIRTH, and he knows it. And he admits it. So he’s ineligible, no matter where he was born, so long as his father is the person he claims as his father. But I have a suspicion . . .
In which case, he’s a FRAUD. Case closed.
This was the sentence that I saw as interesting:
“They merely partake in the rights of their parents, the benefits & rights of whichever parent best suits their needs on any given particular day without having to show a complete and absolute allegiance to either nation.”
Best suits his needs, indeed.
This was another article that I found with a different viewpoint, that of the British in 1854.
British Doctrine of Citizenship
In the Vice Chancellor’s Court, England, Sir John Stewart recently decided that an infant, born in New York, whose mother was an American, and whose father a naturalized citizen of the United States, born in England, is a subject of the Crown of England! Naturalization, although it conferred the right of an American citizen upon the father, did not absolve him from his duties, or deprive him “of his rights as a British subject.”
This is carrying the arrogant and absurd English doctrine of citizenship and allegiance to a most ridiculous extreme. Such a doctrine would make British subjects of every native born American of British extraction, for if it is applicable to one generation born here, it is applicable to all succeeding generations. Those, therefore, who have been priding themselves on being true blue “natives,” will be amused to hear, that by this decision they are subjects of Great Britain and nothing but “foreigners” after all.
Brooklyn Eagle
Wednesday, March 29, 1854
Page: 2