How do you square common understanding with Minor v. Happersett where SCOTUS says:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
(I could not find U.S. v. Rhodes online)
Since Obama has already admitted that his birth was governed by the laws of Great Britain due to his father wouldn't he fail the NBC test because of his dual loyalties?
Since Obama has already admitted that his birth was governed by the laws of Great Britain due to his father wouldn't he fail the NBC test because of his dual loyalties?
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
Then bring it to the SCOTUS, man, 'cause in the meantime you're really just blowing wind around and making yourself, and anyone who agrees with you, look stupid.
Since Obama has already admitted thathis birth was governed by the laws of Great Britaindue to his father wouldn't he fail the NBC test because of his dual loyalties?
What the fuck does that mean?
Are you familiar at all with the Donofrio case?
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
The central point in the Donofrio has always been, "how can Obama be a Natural Born Citizen when he was born with dual loyalties?" If his mother passed on her American citizenship and his father passed on his British citizenship can he be considered a Natural born Citizen?
Did his mother even pass on citizenship? Believe it or not some folks are arguing that because Obama was not born 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Therof' his mother may not have passed on her citizenship. I consider this to be absolute rubbish but I can't find a legal reference to prove them wrong. This is due in part to most searches on citizenship these days providing nothing but birther links. There is § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth but it says this "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; " which actually lends credence to this crazy argument! I can't believe this one because I have always understood that anyone born in the US was automatically a citizen.
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
Even wikipedia backs up the reference as listed above to the meaning of the phrase 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof'. Be sure to read the footnotes.
Section 1 also includes a formal definition of citizenship. During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the citizenship clause—described the clause as excluding not only "Indians", but also “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”[3] Howard also stated the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.[4] Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.[4][5]
Steve, as always, when it comes to reading comprehension, you are the biggest fail I have ever seen. Read those quotes you provided through once more, and then use them to analyze Obama. Obama was born in the U.S. Therefore, by the cases you quote, he is a natural born citizen. All you have to do is read.
Once again, you have your answer. Once again, you can either understand and accept it, or continue in the stupidity that has destroyed your credibility in this forum.
As an aside, citing cases from the 1800s is a prime indicator of fail. If you have to go that far back to find a case that pertains to your issue, then it's very likely a dead issue.
Steve, as always, when it comes to reading comprehension, you are the biggest fail I have ever seen. Read those quotes you provided through once more, and then use them to analyze Obama. Obama was born in the U.S. Therefore, by the cases you quote, he is a natural born citizen. All you have to do is read.
Once again, you have your answer. Once again, you can either understand and accept it, or continue in the stupidity that has destroyed your credibility in this forum.
As an aside, citing cases from the 1800s is a prime indicator of fail. If you have to go that far back to find a case that pertains to your issue, then it's very likely a dead issue.
The point in looking at Wong Kim Ark is that it is from 1898 which means it was decided AFTER the 14th Amendment was adopted (1868).
Since my reading comprehension skills appear to be far behind yours please explain how the above quotes prove Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.
So basically what you are saying is that if anyone is born in the US, whose parents (one or both) are not US citizens at the time of said birth, then the child is not a "natural born citizen?"
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom's dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
How do you squarecommon understandingwithMinor v. Happersettwhere SCOTUS says:“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
In U. S. v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: 'All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.' 'We find no warrant for the opinion [169 U.S. 649, 663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.' 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.
(I could not find U.S. v. Rhodes online) Emphasis added, and there you go.
Also, if you had the Supreme Court precedent for the common law definition of "natural born citizen", why did you press that issue?
So basically what you are saying is that if anyone is born in the US, whose parents (one or both) are not US citizens at the time of said birth, then the child is not a "natural born citizen?"
Y'know who else was not a natural born citizen under this definition? Thomas Jefferson. His mother, Jane Randolph, was born in England and was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Thomas Jefferson's birth.
So basically what you are saying is that if anyone is born in the US, whose parents (one or both) are not US citizens at the time of said birth, then the child is not a "natural born citizen?"
Y'know who else was not a natural born citizen under this definition? Thomas Jefferson. His mother, Jane Randolph, was born in England and was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Thomas Jefferson's birth.
You are also forgetting Chester A. Arthur, President #21. His Father was born in Ireland.
Mr. spock, you obviously understand the cases Steve quoted. Can you explain them to Steve so that he understands?
Also, Steve, you tried to cite 8 U.S.C. §1401, but you have a problem understanding the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and then try to make a big deal of it. All that phrase means is that the person wants to remain a citizen and subject himself to the laws of the U.S. Under this statute, Obama is a citizen.
Also, have you ever learned how to Shepardize cases? I thought not. You see, sometime cases are overruled or superseded. We have a tool called Shepards that can tell us when this has happened. The reason you hardly ever hear lawyers talking about case from the 1800s is that they've nearly all been overruled or superseded. Many cases that have been superseded were superseded by statute. Look at the date of your cases. Now look at the date of the statute. Which do you think has the greater authority? Which supersedes the other?
It's right there in the plain language. If you insist you can't understand it, then you have a serious reading comprehension deficit, but then we all knew that already, didn't we?
You are also forgetting Chester A. Arthur, President #21. His Father was born in Ireland.
Fun fact: A friend of mine is descended from (or at least related somehow to) Chester A. Arthur. His mom was going to name him "Chester Alan", but a co-worker of hers named Chester talked her out of it. Apparently, growing up Chester is no fun. So she named him Alan Arthur.
Mr. spock, you obviously understand the cases Steve quoted. Can you explain them to Steve so that he understands
Well, Mr. Joe, it's like this: We've proven Obama was born in the US, and we've shown how Supreme Court precedents say both that the framers intended "natural born citizen" to mean "one who is born in the US who is a citizen". Combining the two, we can see that Obama is clearly a "natural born citizen". The forumites have also provided examples of other presidents who have had foreign parents (TJ being the most famous), so it is clear this has never been a presidency-stopping issue.
As they say, indeed. It's amazing how easily life's difficult questions may be surmounted when we put on our thinking caps, read for comprehension, and analyze those questions using clear logic. Bravo, Mr. spock!
As they say, indeed. It's amazing how easily life's difficult questions may be surmounted when we put on our thinking caps, read for comprehension, and analyze those questions using clear logic. Bravo, Mr. spock!
Ah, but were it not for your help it would not have been as simple and concise. Thus, kudos to you as well, Mr. Joe.
Now I'm off to don my summer monocle and attend a sporting match of horseback polo after a positively delightful cup of celebratory tea. Good day!
Mr. spock, you obviously understand the cases Steve quoted. Can you explain them to Steve so that he understands
Well, Mr. Joe, it's like this: We've proven Obama was born in the US, and we've shown how Supreme Court precedents say both that the framers intended "natural born citizen" to mean "one who is born in the US who is a citizen". Combining the two, we can see that Obama is clearly a "natural born citizen". The forumites have also provided examples of other presidents who have had foreign parents (TJ being the most famous), so it is clear this has never been a presidency-stopping issue.
Quod ergo demonstratum, as they say.
Nice work, speckospock, but I'm afraid I must point out that the phrase is "Quod erat demonstrandum." Otherwise, bravo Mr. Spock indeed.
Nice work, speckospock, but I'm afraid I must point out that the phrase is "Quod erat demonstrandum." Otherwise, bravo Mr. Spock indeed.
Mr. Cheese, I had always assumed it to be the other way. "Quod erat demonstrandum" means literally "the thing was demonstrated", whereas ""quod ergo demonstratum" means literally "the thing is therefore made clear". I like mine better, even though it is perhaps not the commonly used phrase.
Well, the usual use of "quod ergo demonstrandum" is mostly in maths, where, as Wikipedia says,
The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated;
As such, yours would be more appropriate in this context, though I'd have to take your word for it on the Latin, but it is indeed uncommon.
Perhaps I'll just change my name to devil's advocate?
speckospock: Your argument is not sufficient because it has alreayd been refuted,
“Justice Noah Haynes Swayne was around when they wrote the XIVth Amendment and the Equal Rights Act of 1866 and in 1866 he said this:
‘All persons born in the Allegiance of the King are Natural- Born Subjects, and all persons born in the Allegiance of the United States are Natural-Born Citizens. Birth and Allegiance go together. Such is the Rule of the Common Law, and it is the Common Law of this country…since as before the Revolution.’ “
And this appears to back Mr. BenjaminÂ’s core thesis, that Obama is not a natural born citizen under the common law definition thereof, which may be true, but that in itself is NOT the main reason Obama isnÂ’t eligible. The common law is not our national law. Our national law is the Constitution. We do not follow the common law, we follow the Constitution.
And this is important to note because the common law, which may also bear out that Obama isnÂ’t eligible, at the same time provides Obama with his best argument that he is eligible. The reason for this lies on that part of Justice SwayneÂ’s opinion which Mr. Benjamin did not quote. Here is Justice SwayneÂ’s relevant quote:
“An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.” Vin. Abr. tit. “Alien,” D. …The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is a universal agreement of opinion upon this subject. [**26] Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. [60 U.S.] 578; 2 Story, Const. 44.
United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, at 790 (1866)
The status of the candidate “at birth” is relevant to Article 2, Section 1. For somebody to be a “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, they must have the status “at birth”.
If the common law were applied in the USA, then all naturalized citizens would be eligible to be President since the common law understanding was that, as quoted by Swayne, “Naturalization takes effect from birth”. If we followed that today, then all naturalized citizens would be returned to birth to be reborn and could therefore claim “natural born citizen” status.
Mr. Benjamin correctly points out that naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger can NOT be President since they are naturalized and the US doesn’t recognize those persons as “natural born citizens”.
But Mr. Benjamin also argues that this idea comes from the common law and he is wrong about that. The common law holds that Arnold Schwarzenegger, having been naturalized, would have been a “natural born subject”. And if we then apply the common law concept and understanding of “natural born subject” to “natural born citizen” then Arnold Schwarzenegger would be eligible to be President since, at common law, his birth status could change upon naturalization.
But Arnold Schwarzenegger is not eligible to be President because the United States doesnÂ’t follow common law. The United States follows national law, and our national law is the CONSTITUTION.
Obama was not an alien, and therefore did not have to undergo naturalization. He was born on US soil after Hawaii had been admitted to the union; he is as much a natural born citizen as every other President we've ever had.
Perhaps I'll just change my name to devil's advocate?
speckospock: Your argument is not sufficient because it has alreayd been refuted,
Your argument is insufficient, because it has already been refuted. We've shown how Obama was born in the US, how that means he is a "natural born citizen", and how this has affected other presidencies (setting a precedent). Either show how these make him ineligible for the presidency or refute these points, please.
Comments
Since Obama has already admitted that his birth was governed by the laws of Great Britain due to his father wouldn't he fail the NBC test because of his dual loyalties?
The central point in the Donofrio has always been, "how can Obama be a Natural Born Citizen when he was born with dual loyalties?" If his mother passed on her American citizenship and his father passed on his British citizenship can he be considered a Natural born Citizen?
Did his mother even pass on citizenship? Believe it or not some folks are arguing that because Obama was not born 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Therof' his mother may not have passed on her citizenship. I consider this to be absolute rubbish but I can't find a legal reference to prove them wrong. This is due in part to most searches on citizenship these days providing nothing but birther links. There is § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth but it says this "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; " which actually lends credence to this crazy argument! I can't believe this one because I have always understood that anyone born in the US was automatically a citizen. What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
Even wikipedia backs up the reference as listed above to the meaning of the phrase 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof'. Be sure to read the footnotes.
Once again, you have your answer. Once again, you can either understand and accept it, or continue in the stupidity that has destroyed your credibility in this forum.
As an aside, citing cases from the 1800s is a prime indicator of fail. If you have to go that far back to find a case that pertains to your issue, then it's very likely a dead issue.
Since my reading comprehension skills appear to be far behind yours please explain how the above quotes prove Obama to be a Natural Born Citizen.
Also, if you had the Supreme Court precedent for the common law definition of "natural born citizen", why did you press that issue?
Also, Steve, you tried to cite 8 U.S.C. §1401, but you have a problem understanding the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and then try to make a big deal of it. All that phrase means is that the person wants to remain a citizen and subject himself to the laws of the U.S. Under this statute, Obama is a citizen.
Also, have you ever learned how to Shepardize cases? I thought not. You see, sometime cases are overruled or superseded. We have a tool called Shepards that can tell us when this has happened. The reason you hardly ever hear lawyers talking about case from the 1800s is that they've nearly all been overruled or superseded. Many cases that have been superseded were superseded by statute. Look at the date of your cases. Now look at the date of the statute. Which do you think has the greater authority? Which supersedes the other?
It's right there in the plain language. If you insist you can't understand it, then you have a serious reading comprehension deficit, but then we all knew that already, didn't we?
Quod ergo demonstratum, as they say.
Now I'm off to don my summer monocle and attend a sporting match of horseback polo after a positively delightful cup of celebratory tea. Good day!
speckospock: Your argument is not sufficient because it has alreayd been refuted, LEO DONOFRIO COMMENTS ON JUDAH BENJAMIN ARTICLE CONCERNING NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AND THE COMMON LAW