The key tenet of the Obama denialist position is that for an individual to be “natural born citizen,” eligible for the Presidency, the candidate must have been born to citizen parents, on American soil. No matter what you may hear from their side, there is no authority for this proposition.
Bring this up to an Obama denialist, though, and you’re likely to hear about how a truly ancient U.S. Supreme Court decision – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897) - never bothered to declare that anyone born on American soil, regardless of parentage, is a “natural born citizen.” Because they failed to say as much explicitly, the story goes, they clearly implicitly rejected the idea. This, too, is false – and not just because of the tortured logic. The following is a precise quote from the case in question, unedited so you can see the context.
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693.
This much is indisputable. At issue in Wong Kim Ark was the citizenship of a child, born on American soil to Chinese nationals. Later, Wong Kim Ark, the child, left America, and returned from China during the operation of the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which forbade the immigration of non-citizen Chinese. The Court held that Wong Kim Ark was entitled to re-immigrate, not just because he was a citizen, but because he was a natural born citizen, because (1) British law defined “natural born citizens” to include those born to foreign, non-consular parents on British soil, (2) American law tracked British law, and (3) this definition had never been modified. The Court did not have to examine the issue of natural born citizenship, but they did – explicitly, and at considerable length. If you don’t believe me, read the case, at least through page 693 (don’t worry, it starts on 649).
Nor was Wong Kim Ark the first case to confer natural-born citizenship upon children born in the United States to alien parents. The Ninth Circuit beat the Supreme Cour to the punch, See In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905, 907 (C. C. Cal. 1884, as the Supreme Court itself agreed later in the opinion:
In the courts of the United States in the Ninth Circuit, it has been uniformly held, in a series of opinions delivered by Mr. Justice Field, Judge Sawyer, Judge Deady, Judge Hanford, and Judge Morrow, that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China, is a native-born citizen of the United States. In re Look Tin Sing (1884), 10 Sawyer 358; Ex parte Chin King (1888), 13 Sawyer 333; In re Yung Sing Hee (1888) 13 Sawyer 482; In re Wy Shing (1888), 13 Sawyer 530; Gee Fook Sing v. United States (1892), 7 U.S.App. 7; In re Wong Kim Arm (1896), 71 Fed.Rep. 38. And we are not aware of any judicial decision to the contrary.
See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 697.
Neither the facts nor the law are friends to the Obama denialist movement. They need to learn to accept this simple truth, and move on. And to you, readers, I swear this is the last wall-of-text post I’ll write on the subject.
Why can’t they just verify the birth certificate. What is Obama hiding? It is the duty of electors to uphold the constitution. It is your burden to deal with this, we are upholding the constitution.
The longer this is not dealt with, the greater the potential consequences.
Posted by F Ben Kautz | March 19, 2009, 8:35 amF Ben -
He DID. Hawaii gov’t verified. Repeatedly.
Posted by ACG | March 19, 2009, 10:12 amEven verifying the birth certificate doesn’t satisfy the staunchest denialists, because they insist that Obama’s father’s British citizenship, and therefore British law, prevent Obama from being a natural born citizen – regardless of place of birth or his mother’s citizenship.
This is patently absurd, because it allows for the laws of another country to dictate whom of our citizens may be eligible for president. He was born here, to an American mother. What if Obama had been the product of a sperm donation or a one night stand?
From the issues of children of aliens and the children of citizens abroad, it seems to me that this question of natural-born citizenship only hinges on one of three conditions being met: you must be born on American soil OR your mother must be an American citizen of American residence OR your father must be an American citizen of American residence. Each condition appears to have equal weight, and one and only one is sufficient. Why, then, does Obama require all three?
Posted by Kris | March 19, 2009, 10:28 amYada, yada, yada!
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’s (1898) importance is that it is the first case decided by the Supreme Court that attempts to explain the meaning of “natural born citizen” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
But it is not the last.
Perkins v. Elg’s (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.
Of course, if the Usurper, paid the $12.00, and released his vault-copy birth certificate, none of this bullshit would be necessary.
It was Obama that started the “Muslim rumor” and it is Obama who is fueling the “not eligible” rumor.
The real question is, will this Marxist be exposed as the fraud he is before he destroys the United States of America.
Posted by Beckwith | March 19, 2009, 11:39 amYo, Kris, what makes you think that Obama wasn’t born the product of a sperm donation or a one night stand?
Like the rest of us, you have absolutley no hard evidence of where he was born or who his father is – none – zero – nada – zilch.
Operative words — “no hard evidence.”
This remark, “it allows for the laws of another country to dictate whom of our citizens may be eligible for president.” is simply stupid.
It isn’t the laws of another country that’s doing the dictating, it is the U. S. Constitution.
The FACT is, that “AT BIRTH” Obama was a subject of Great Britian and a citizen of Kenya.
He admits this himself.
Posted by Beckwith | March 19, 2009, 11:47 amRe: And to you, readers, I swear this is the last wall-of-text post I’ll write on the subject.
GOOD!
Because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Posted by Beckwith | March 19, 2009, 11:49 amBeckwith, I have now looked through Perkins v. Elg and find only one mention of “natural born citizen” and in that context, it says nothing regarding what you claim.
The ruling goes on to state, referring to another case: “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States.”
This implies that the term “native-born citizen” confers the same qualification to the Presidency as “natural born citizen”. In this case, the young Steinkauler in question was born in America to a naturalized American father. The elder Steinkauler later returned to Germany with his minor son, and there he obtained German Citizenship for himself and his son. And yet the opinion is that the son retains his right of native-born citizenship until he expressly denounces it after the age of majority.
The details in this case do differ from Obama’s, and here we do not even know of the citizenship of Steinkauler’s other parent, but these facts are clear: holding dual-citizenship as a minor does not preclude the full rights of American citizenship otherwise conferred at birth. Some have claimed that Obama’s time in Indonesia, ostensibly as an Indonesian citizen, disqualifies him, but this is evidence otherwise. This is not your argument, Beckwith, but I just wanted to make that clear.
So we come back to your argument that natural-born citizenship requires both parents be American citizens and that the birth be on American soil. This would have also disqualified John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which is not U.S. soil. (From the State Department: “Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”) The state department also claims that statutory natural-born citizenship is not necessarily the same as Constituional natural-born citizenship. Essentially, the Constitution does not define the term, and Congress might not even be able to effectively define it through statute anyway.
What I’ve presented is in no way definitive proof that Obama IS a natural born citizen, but it does invalidate many supposed “slam-dunk” arguments against him. As far as the proof you mention in your post, what proof do you have that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, etc were actually conceived by the fathers on their birth certificates? Should I call that into question, claiming that any one of our past presidents may have been conceived illegitimately by a father of foreign citizenship, and that his mother lied on the birth certificate (as is undeniably commonly done in such cases)?
Finally, I would like to remind you that Perkins v. Elg in no way defends your claims. Please provide actual evidence.
Posted by Kris | March 19, 2009, 12:55 pmBeckwith, you said: “Perkins v. Elg’s (1939) importance is that it actually gives examples of what a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is; what a “citizen” of the U.S. is; and what a “native born citizen” of the U. S. is.
In this case, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a “natural born citizen” is a person who is born of two U.S. citizen parents AND born in the mainland of U.S.”
Uh no.
This is the SCOTUS decision onPerkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939):
“The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”"
What the SCOTUS did is AFFIRMED Elizabeth Elg status as natural born citizen because she was born in the US to SWEDISH parents (Who were naturalized).
Sure Obama’s father is never a US citizen but his mother is a natural born citizen and he was born in Hawaii so he fits all the criteria to be considered as NBC.
Posted by LaLee | March 19, 2009, 1:00 pmSo, if you don’t like the words, just make up a new meaning for them?
SCOTUS affirmed that Elg was born to 2(Two) NATURALIZED parents in the US. And then you equate these NATURALIZED parents to a father who not only was not permanently domiciled in the US but was NEVER a US Citizen. So are you saying that Elg’s naturalized parents are the same as Obama’s non-citizen father? That’s absurd reasoning.
Elg was rightly held by the court to be NBC, as she was born in the US to 2(Two) US Citizens. Naturalization of the parents does NOT confer dual citizenship to Elg AT BIRTH.
You would be well within your rights to question the legitimacy of prior presidents….the difference being there are no (known to me) questions surrounding their birth. Can you say that about Obama. I have no problems with his early life travels or his worldly ways, but he sure wants to keep a lot of his history private and sealed away from the public. This makes it suspect and ground for questioning his background. Was this the case for previous persidents? If so – then YES! They should be questioned.
I think people want to read into cases, public statements, etc. what they want to hear in order to bolster their own views.
Posted by Sally Hill | March 20, 2009, 9:18 amSally said: “You would be well within your rights to question the legitimacy of prior presidents….the difference being there are no (known to me) questions surrounding their birth. Can you say that about Obama.”
Yes.
In case you don’t know Obama’s COLB has been verified by Janice Okubo and Hawaii State Health Director Chiyome Fukino.
Just because Obama didn’t let you (Or Beckwith or Berg or Taitz or Donofrio Or … Do you get the idea?) personally inspect his COLB does not mean there’s “questions surrounding his birth.”
“I have no problems with his early life travels or his worldly ways, but he sure wants to keep a lot of his history private and sealed away from the public.”
His COLB is freely available on websites (FactCheck and Politifact), he toldl the story of his drug use in his book and the fact that his father is a Kenyan national (IIRC).
As for the sealed BC, it is sealed because it’s a PRIVATE DOCUMENT which is protected to prevent identity theft.
Hence why Obama only able to show his COLB.
“I think people want to read into cases, public statements, etc. what they want to hear in order to bolster their own views.”
No offense but do you have any sense of irony?
Posted by LaLee | March 20, 2009, 10:12 amBeckwith typifies the citizenship denier when he cites a case, but cherry picks quotes or misstates the the ruling, or cites the dissenting opinion.
Should you ever need to beat a denier to a pulp (rather than just win the argument), the ammo dump is here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
I’m counting 5 articles now…you’re getting sucked in. I’ve seen it happen, and it’s not pretty.
Posted by Dr. Conspiracy | March 21, 2009, 9:39 pmYeah, you’re right. It’s just so damn entertaining, and easy to write :)
Posted by ACG | March 22, 2009, 6:47 pmBe carefull what wishfull thinking will do to your presumptions. An entire class of both native, native born, native born of natural born citizen parents, and natural born themselvs cannot even vote for a presedent let alone be nominated by a major party. Your defense of the 14th ammendment places thw white mans burden and manifest destiny on everyone elses shoulders but your own! By your argument I take it Paul of Tarsus; a Syrian; arguing in ancient Israel, was properly a Roman citizen, then died a proper Roman death. Proper because he found a court with jurisdiction. A scotus ruling on Obamas NBC status would admit the failure of the congress to act constitutionally– and please dont deny it- it has already blown up in enough faces. Or dont you know….
Posted by tom | March 24, 2009, 10:20 amIf Obama was born in Hawaii, he was either a citizen, or he was not. Obama was not a citizen of the United States “at birth”.
Obama’s Citizenship Status
Amendment XIV of the Constitution states:
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.
US Law States:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401.
Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
1 (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
US law § 1401 1(a) is simply a restatement of the Constitution!
What do the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” mean?
In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone.
Both Sen. Lyman Trumbull and Sen. Jacob Howard, key figures in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responding to questions of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States declared it to mean “complete” jurisdiction.
Senator Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now”.
Senator Trumbull, declared:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’
“Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Obama was born in the United States under limited jurisdiction and therefore not a citizen at birth!
The opinion rendered by Chief Justice John Marshal in the landmark case, Marbury v. Madison stated:
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…”
Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion means that the words of Section 1 of Amendment XIV have effect and any construction that changes the intention of those words is inadmissible!
The interpretation in TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401 >1 (a) of the meaning of ” and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may not override the effect or eliminate the words in the Constitution. It would be inadmissible!
Not only are the words clearly stated in Amendment XIV, but the meaning of those words is clearly defined by the framers. Neither Congress NOR ANY court has the power to change the meaning of those words! Only We The People can by an Amendment to the Constitution.
Posted on Obama’s website is this admission:
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.
By Obama’s own statement, his citizenship was subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom “at birth”. That is limited, not complete, US jurisdiction.
By definitions of the requirement, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” supplied by Senators Trumbull and Howard of the word “jurisdiction”:
OBAMA WAS NOT A US CITIZEN AT BIRTH!
OBAMA WAS A UK CITIZEN AT BIRTH!
Bottom line:
Obama was not a citizen of US at birth (Nor is he a “National”)
Obama was a citizen of the UK at birth (not a dual citizen)
Obama remained in the US with his mother until she married Soetoro.
Soetoro adopts Obama and takes him to Indonesia. (Kenyan or some other passport?)
Obama returns to US ~9 years old. Traveling with citizen mother.
How did he get in?
Obama never becomes a naturalized citizen, Obama is an illegal alien.
If (and there is no record of it) Obama returned and was naturalized, then he would be a naturalized citizen, ineligible to be President of the United States.
Posted by Starbeau | April 4, 2009, 10:00 pmI’m having trouble following all of that, but are you saying that China could royally screw the US by passing a law saying that everyone born everywhere is subject to its jurisdiction? After everyone alive now passes away, there wouldn’t be a single person qualified for the Presidency, right?
Hell, I see nothing in there stopping a country from retroactively asserting that it had jurisdiction over everyone from the time of their birth. What do we do in 2012 if Russia decides to do that?
Posted by Gotchaye | April 5, 2009, 12:22 amWhere on earth did the majority get the idea that the 14th amendment says anything about allegiance? In their opinion in wong kim ark they wrote:
“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and…”
Posted by xentrik | July 22, 2009, 12:06 amIt appears the majority opinion of the SCOTUS screwed up in their opinion of the 14th regarding allegiance.
John Bingham, 14th amendment framer, March 9, 1866:”
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…. .”
Probably none of this will matter since his records, including long-form birth certificate, will be subpoenead, and then we will find out what they were hiding, but the word allegiance is not written into the 14th.
It is totally insane for anyone to believe that just being in a country, or within a coutry’s jurisdiction, gives that person allegiance to the country. If it did, we’d never have to fight wars on our own soil.
Posted by 2Liberty | July 26, 2009, 3:05 pmBingham’s words are not binding on the Supreme Court. Indeed, it’s curious that a paleo-conservative like yourself would turn to legislative history in trying to construe the 14th Amendment, when legislative history is in other cases the bugbear of the right.
Further, Bingham was likely wrong. The NBC clause was added at Hamilton’s request, I believe, for the mere purpose of preventing a naturalized citizen from becoming President. The import of “natural born citizenship” is simply that the child must take their citizenship at birth, period.
Also, regardless of whether you think WKA was wrongly decided, it’s the law now. Deal with it.
Posted by ACG | July 26, 2009, 3:31 pmI comment on WKA because the writings of the majority are used here to justify Obama’s right to be considered natural born and hold office.
Where does the “paleo-conservative” attack emanate from? I’m not left or right.
What do you use to back your belief that “The import of “natural born citizenship” is simply that the child must take their citizenship at birth, period?”
Posted by 2Liberty | July 26, 2009, 5:32 pmOf course, of course; just like Glenn Beck’s not a Republican.
As to your third point, try reading a book about constitutional law.
Posted by ACG | July 26, 2009, 5:45 pmWhich book?
Orly Taitz, Esquire, is using encyclapaeda “The Law of Nations” by Vettel, to back her case. She says when the constitution was adopted, this was the most well known encyc. for law and govt, and based on this encyc., our constitution was written.
Posted by 2Liberty | July 26, 2009, 6:05 pmWhile the US adopted some common law notions, it expressly rejected many more, especially those of citizenship. Taitz is 300 years late, and reading a secondary source to explain a primary document. There’s a reason she didn’t go to a real law school, you know.
For starters, Amar’s “America’s Constitution: a Biography” is an honest, relevant, and accessible explanation of many important clauses, the natural born citizen proviso being one of them.
Posted by ACG | July 26, 2009, 6:14 pmThe writer still doesn’t explain how any of those court decisions on citizenship apply to Article II of the Constitution which deals with qualifications for a person seeking to be President.
US Law also, did not ‘track’ British law. In fact it is far more logical that the Framers viewed ‘natural born citizen’ through the eyes of Veccal’s Law of Nations than that of British common law.
Posted by John | August 4, 2009, 12:07 amHi, “the writer” here. The court decisions reference the definition of “natural born citizen,” which necessarily bears upon Article II.
Now. Veccal’s a good guy, sure. But while the Framers would’ve been aware of the book and its concepts, the Constitution necessarily reframed the relationship between citizen and state. Of all the British legal concepts they would feel required to revisit and recast, the definition of citizenship is #1.
Posted by ACG | August 4, 2009, 12:25 amHi ACG:
And which of those court decisions you reference were filed on behalf of or against an individual seeking a bid for the Presidency?
And let me get this straight – it is your position that a person with birthright to two distinct nationalities should be allowed to be Commander in Chief? You don’t see the danger in that?
-John
Posted by John | August 4, 2009, 1:25 amIf the law required all cases to be precisely on point before they were authoritative, no-one would ever get anything done. Take a step back, and use abstraction/logic.
As to your next point, the question isn’t what you or I have a problem with, or think we should fear. The question is what the Framers did fear, and take steps to prevent.
At the time of the founding, there was no such thing as dual citizenship. We’re left to infer how the Framers would’ve reacted to it. The NBC clause was an afterthought, tossed in to prevent a naturalized citizen from taking the Presidency. Done.
Posted by ACG | August 4, 2009, 2:12 amIt seems to me at this date that ALL CITIZENS OF THE US in 1789 were DUAL CITIZENS as most of the colonists were of English descent. There are the official colonies of Sweden, France, and Holland (New York) where the arguments could be made for triple citizenship – Dutch, English, then American.
England did not disown the thousands of colonists who were citizens of the Crown when the US Constitution was approved.
So, in several respects all Presidents who were born before 1789 or so were DUAL CITIZENS. Didn’t seem to hurt the US that much during 2 wars with the Crown (Rev/1812).
Posted by Jorge | January 6, 2010, 2:01 pmJorge:
Right, and where are you going with your statement?
The relevant passage (to this discussion) from Article II, Sec 1 (again):
“No person *except* a natural born citizen, OR A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of President”
So two groups of people, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution were eligible to seek the office of President:
1) A ‘Natural Born Citizen’ (those who were born on or after the signing on 9/17/1787)
OR,
2) Those people who were already Citizens of their respective States on September 17, 1787 (the so-called ‘grandfather clause’ for the people who willingly and passionately fought for Independence from England’s tyranny of the ‘Colonies’). Whether or not England recognized those individuals as subjects of the Crown isn’t relevant.
So the debate centers only around ONE item:
“what defines a ‘natural born citizen’”
The Obamanites will forward whatever interpretation of the Constitution and Case Law that seems to support their position.
The anti-Obama crowd keep chomping on about brith certficates and Indonesian citizenship.
The Independents, such as myself, who truly dislike the Two-Party Party (Gop and Dem) have looked at this issue impartially and based on the facts.
Many years before 1787, the world of international relations was fairly consistent on what constitutes a “natural born citizen” – a child born on native soil to TWO CITIZEN parents. There is NO credible evidence for the view that the Framers had employed a different standard, otherwise the “Grandfather clause” was completely unnecessary.
The citations of Case Law, such as Kim Wong Ark, are specious and provocative at best. The case and subsequent SCOTUS decision dealt with the citizenship of a man born on US Soil to two Chinese citizen parents working in the US on visas. Ark, went to visit China and upon his return was denied re-entry into the U.S. (the country of his birth) on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen. There were actually laws on the books that specifically dealt with the influx of Chinese to the West Coast seeking work. The SCOTUS decision ultimately held that Ark was born on US soil, therefore he is a US Citizen.
The decision mentions the term “Natural Born Citizen” but did not seek to clarify or redefine the term.
In fact, there is considerable historic evidence that as the US approached the 20th century, government officials and the media alike were quite of the mind that a NBC as it applies to the US is born on US solid to TWO US Citizen parents.
The topic of an NBC wasn’t relevant for much of the 20th Century until the past two Presidential elections in which candidates (not just Obama) who were not even citizens by birth on US soil were gaining ballot access in various States.
Obama made it through the inauguration without any formal action taking place to clarify his candidacy status. The next chance we have to correct ballot eligibility will be 2012. Roger Calero, a naturalized citizen (born IN Nicaragua to Nicaraguan citizen parents) appeared on 5 State ballots. Not only hasn’t the SOTS of those 5 States reviewed and straightened out their ballot eligibility procedures, there hasn’t even been discussion of it.
Because President Obama is not a sinister evil (just intellectually misguided) Obamamites take this issue lightly. Even though the President looks more and more like a BIGGER government Bush Light with each passing day and nothing like an evil Socialist hell bent on turning the country Muslim and Communist – Obama supporters feel as though they made an intelligent logical choice. When, in fact, they elected a man who should have never had his named placed on a Presidential ballot.
If this egregious un-Constitutional and dangerous issue isn’t corrected by or before the next primary season, we have been willing participants in creating a security risk with the highest office in the land.
Posted by JBL | January 6, 2010, 5:59 pmACG:
You cleverly avoided answering my question and yet got me to see the issue from a different vantage point. Congratulations, that doesn’t happen very often!
That said, my concern remains intact. This country somehow took a contract designed to limit the power and influence of a centralized government, and turned it on its head growing government exponentially and creating an Imperialistic unprecedented world power.
It is dangerous to leave the door to the White House unlocked. Now I don’t see Barack Obama as a saboteur – horribly misguided philosophically perhaps, but not a bad man. But the issue of a person who can claim dual citizenship by birth being permitted to be Commander in Chief is not a sober, safe policy.
John
Posted by John | August 4, 2009, 3:54 am“But the issue of a person who can claim dual citizenship by birth being permitted to be Commander in Chief is not a sober, safe policy.”
I disagree. Your concern here is with foreign allegiances, and I agree that is a concern, and it’s at least part of the concern the Framers had when they sought to prevent naturalized citizens from becoming president.
However, citizenship is often “allegiance in name only” and does not always reflect where one’s true allegiances lie. For instances, natural-born citizens who frequently visit extended family in a foreign country may feel as much allegience to the country of their heritage has the to the country of their birth. Should these people be disqualified from being president? Alternatively, someone like my cousin, who holds dual-citizenship with Panama, may have absolutely no allegiances whatsoever to any country other than the U.S.A. By your logic, my cousin should never be allowed to be president, even if he denounces his Panamanian citizenship before he turns 18 (which he “has” to do, and may have already), whereas your argument thus far says nothing of the first example – the natural-born citizen with full-blown foreign allegiances.
If your concern is truly with foreign allegiances, then shouldn’t the oath of office suffice to dispel your fears?
Posted by Kris | August 4, 2009, 2:08 pmAgain, it seems to me that ALL PRESIDENTS of the US born before 1789 were dual citizens. I have never seen any individual documentation where anyone openly renounced citizenship to the Crown. We fought 2 wars against the Crown (1 victory/1 draw/kinda victory) with Dual Citizens as President.
Posted by Jorge | January 6, 2010, 2:05 pmKris: if you took a step back and re-read the first part of your rebuttal, it sounds as if you are strengthening my position.
The invocation of the term “natural born citizen” in Article II, Sec 1 shouldn’t be read as an original, yet nebulous, concept left to future generations to interpret as required for the ruling agenda of the day.
Barrack Obama was elected as the anti-Bush, despite several other viable alternatives for which 95% of the voting public never bothered to reach outside of the Two-Party Party to get familiarized with. The Media as usual did the water-carrying for their political programming partners; conducting polling during the first few debates, and making collective programming decisions (undoubtedly with “bi-partisan” input from the Federal Elections Commission on who are or aren’t viable candidates in their estimation. Usually right around Iowa or New Hampshire, Major Media and the FEC make their first set of roster cuts, based on polling and performance – but mostly polling. The media clearly relishes its subtle, perhaps even subconscious or diabolical – there’s a fine edge between those two – role of shaping the campaign in it’s early primary Stages. Before Super Tuesday ever occurs, half the candidates from each of the Two-Party Parties have mysteriously vanished from the Debates . . . and evening newscast . . . and daily newspapers. And it happens sudden and without warning. Ron Paul had the largest warchest of any GOP candidate two years ago this week. But his positions were at odds with the outgoing administration as well as the GOP neo-Con revisionist party platform. Proverbially, Paul didn’t play well in Peoria, despite having the most forward thinking, classical compassionate Conservative campaign out of any of the candidates vying for the GOP nod.
Ron Paul sometimes comes off as the lecturing, know-it-all Professor, particularly during interviews (some conducted by people who seem to hate Libertarian, abortion adverse, yet Pro-Choice Obstetrician – just on principle). But in debate, Ron Paul is unmatched in the GOP and perhaps all politics. Not because he projects the best, or has the best cadence and delivery – but because he doesn’t mince words, tells you EXACTLY how he feels about an issue and why, and he offers SPECIFIC solutions. But from the day after NH, Paul was the subject of exactly one cable news network story straight through to election day. Media as-well-as neo-con’s deployed a narrative portraying Rep Paul as an intra-party fringe movement leader. Meanwhile, Ralph Nader, as qualified to be President as any man in history, was essentially blacked out from news coverage the day after he announced the launch of his campaign. I was wrong, btw, a debate between Ron Paul and Ralph Nader would be spot on the best political theater going.
To wrap this up, the point is . . . an election between Sen Barrack Obama, Rep Ron Paul, Sen John McCain, and Ralph Nader would have been far more constructive and beneficial for the American public to bear witness than the overly rehearsed, scripted, coached light weight bouts between Obama and Mccain.
An Instant Run-off ballot of those four candidates may still have yielded Obama a victory, but by a far slimmer margin, and with a clear picture of where America stands on every issue and not just the few buzz topics that the two-party party negotiate between themselves to focus on during the campaign.
Obama has made some positive changes, but his re-election hopes are on thin ice as he heads into year two. Less than 24 months from now, he will be in full campaign mode. What occurs in the next 12 months will make or break him.
But the damage that candidate Obama caused to become President Obama – that is, born on US soil but to one US citizen parent and one foreign national parent, thus Barrack Obama not being a natural born citizen could come home to roost for the US – in the future in any number of forms. You can follow the rhetoric of the Two-Party Party, or you can separate your ideological mind from your analytical mind. De-filter and decide for yourself. Obama is just another flavor of ice-cream from the Two-Party Party.
Posted by JBL | January 6, 2010, 7:34 pmBenjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775:
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author
Letter 459 in this link:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html
Posted by 2Liberty | August 10, 2009, 10:58 amOK… so? It’s a big jump from “the Founders were aware of X,” to “the Founders intended to enact X into law.” Similarly, Plutarch’s Lives of Famous Romans was a frequent favorite among the Founders, as were Livy’s Histories, and other works by Greek historians. Am I to take from that, that they intended to rebuild the Roman Republic, or Sparta?
Posted by ACG | August 10, 2009, 12:41 pmi do have a question if you’ll indulge me (i’m in the medical not legal field): how would dual citizenship factor in, if it does at all?
Posted by nancy | August 10, 2009, 1:47 pmIf to be natural born citizen you need 2 citizen parents how come 8 presidents were British subjects at birth? Ex. James Buchanan, Chester Arthur, BOTH parents were Irish.
What about Mis Elg, Lynch and Wong Kim this last one of Chinese (not naturalized) parents? Were declared by the Supreme Court natural born citizens.
Posted by sarina | December 28, 2009, 10:07 pmI believe you are incorrect on Buchanan, a racist Democrat from the North who was a devout Southern sympathizer, in fact I know you are. Buchanan’s parents emigrated from Ireland in 1783, the Constitutional Convention was is 1788. Buchanan’s parents were citizen’s of Pennsylvania, and thus grandfathered Citizens of the United States by way of ratification.
And I believe the number of Presidents that qualified under the “grandfather provision” where Article II Sec 1 states “. . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, . . .” is actually 10 and most certainly does not include Chestur Arthur, who was born AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. Recent research uncovered the . William Arthur was the non-citizen parent of Chestur Arthur. But Chestur Arthur fabricated a cover when he ran for VP, which fraudently placed his Father’s naturalization before Chester’s birth. We know this because he stated as such to a Brooklyn newspaper during the campaign. So Chestur Arthur illegally served as VP, thus most certainly as President. Many suspected he was linked to the assassination of his predecessor, James Garfield. Chestur Arthur is to this day generally regarded as one of the worst President’s since the adoption of the Constitution.
Posted by John | December 29, 2009, 3:19 amAnd the peer reviewed evidence for this paragraph??? Statements into thin are are just that.
Posted by Jorge | January 6, 2010, 2:07 pmJorge, “peer-reviewed”? Are you a scientist? I love science, but the term is a little misplaced in a blog and comments section discussing Constitutional Law, don’t ya think?
The link in the last half of the second paragraph above is a scan of the microfiche record at the Library of Congress of William Arthur’s naturalization certificate.
Even Arthur historian Tom Reeves acknowledges that Arthur was born British subject.
Posted by JBL | January 7, 2010, 6:47 pmHardly surprising, considering he was born in Ireland. So I guess you’ve proven the obvious. Congratulations!
Now you just need to prove why, contrary to Blackstone 1:10, this should matter in the slightest.
Posted by lanfranc | January 7, 2010, 9:01 pmlanfranc,
huh?
Posted by JBL | January 9, 2010, 12:08 amWell, it seems pretty obvious to me that a man born in Ireland in the late 18th century would most likely be a British subject.
The reason why this doesn’t matter is that Blackstone’s Commentaries bk. 1 ch. 10 is quite clear on the issue: “The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.” Very straightforward, no mention of ‘two citizens’ or anything of the sort.
And the Commentaries, of course, are the single most influential treatment of 18th century British law, and significantly more likely to have influenced the Founders than de Vattel or any other Continental author one might care to dig up.
Posted by lanfranc | January 9, 2010, 8:02 amWell, no one knows for sure where Chester Arthur was born – as he saw fit to destroy nearly all of his personal papers just before his death. That and his alleged involvement with the assassination of the man he would succeed as President is some pretty heavy circumstantial evidence that he had less than honorable intentions.
That said, your point about Blackstone is noted, but many of the Signers had written about consulting Vattel.
Those who wish to rewrite the Constitution’s Framework on the fly without convention, conference or accountability will continue to make sh*t up to support their argument.
Posted by JBL | January 9, 2010, 2:17 pmJust like you.
Posted by Jorge | January 17, 2010, 10:51 pmWhy is it that I actually pity rather than loathe you? You follow the logic so far as it takes you to where you want it to go, and not to it’s conclusion which is where I go with it.
If dual citizenship BY BIRTH isn’t a big deal, then perhaps we should just allow everyone to chose a second country of citizenship. Just by stating they are citizens of another country makes them so, does it not? That’s the sort of faulty logic your perpetuating. You might want to consider re-wiring and leave your political affiliation out of the circuit.
Posted by JBL | January 18, 2010, 5:50 pmIt’s just too bad your “logic” has no relation to the laws of the United States, which of course determine who is a US citizen.
If you disagree with those laws, your democratic society offers quite a number of opportunities to attempt to influence them.
Here’s a hint, though: Covering your ears and going “LALALA!” is not really one of them.
Posted by lanfranc | January 18, 2010, 6:41 pmlanfranc: your insults and fondue-like understanding of the Constitution are no substitute for actual intelligence. I’m sure you’re a nice guy though. That all said, it’s “Constitutional Law” we are discussing here. There is no law in the US code regarding “natural born citizen”. There is your interpretation which has little basis in fact and none in logic. Then there is the position that I and many others share outside of the blind hysteria of electing a person woefully in over his head simply because he speaks well and makes you feel good about yourself, while making promises he could not and cannot make good on.
Just a reminder, I’m an Independent and have voted in various elections for candidates in various party’s. This isn’t about race, party affiliation or political philosophy. This is about a system that is broken.
Here in CT we have a Secretary of the State who was running for Governor, when she realized she couldn’t win that race, and AG Blumenthal announced his bid for the Senate, the SOTS, drops out of the Governors race and enters the race for AG. AFTER she announces her bid for the AG’s office, she realizes that she may not have fulfilled the qualifications for that job. So she is now asking the sitting AG who is running for Senate to rule on her qualifications. The funny thing is – it is the SOTS’s JOB to certify candidates for elections before placing them on a ballot or into Primaries.
This is the very same SOTS that placed THREE unqualified Presidential candidates on the ballot. Obama, McCain AND Calero. Who is Calero? He’s the Nicaraguan BORN to Nicaraguan citizen parents, naturalized US citizen who was illegally PLACED on the ballot in Connecticut and 5 other States. The CT AG defended the CT SOTS in State court when she was challenged to produce the paper trail that led to her certification of Calero’s candidacy.
And so you, lanfranc want to continue to believe that just because Obama seems like a good guy, and is well intentioned and makes you feel good, that it’s OK to allow precedent to be set without any formal review or process.
Lost in all of this nonsense that you and yours spew is the fact that Obama was WELL AWARE of his issues with fulfilling the qualifications for eligibility to run for POTSUS and was seeking changes in the law (even though it really requires a SCOTUS review or a Constitutional Amendment) to cover his ass in the 12 months preceding the announcement of his candidacy.
Posted by JBL | January 18, 2010, 7:09 pmGee, that would have been an nice bit to throw in. Doesn’t make any difference though – see the Wong case.
President Arthur is an American Citizen, so his dad wasn’t. Doesn’t matter – you don’t need ANY parents to be natural/native born. All you have to do is be born here like our latest President. Dual Citizenship does not seem to be an issue to anyone but birfers.
Look up the term – Anchor Baby – It should be in the Conservative Clown Guide somewhere.
Posted by Jorge | January 17, 2010, 10:56 pmJBL: So it is your contention that since the SoS of CT neglected to enforce the constitutionality of a single, utterly marginal candidate (unfortunate, but understandable), this reinforces the theory that other candidates would be unconsitutional as well? An interesting idea, except you will note that a number of other states in fact did reject Calero’s candidacy, forcing his party to run a substitute. In these other states, neither McCain nor Obama had any problems whatsoever. Considering your laudable insistence on the use of logic, I’m sure you’ll agree that this does weaken your position somewhat.
Also, could you elaborate on what a “fondue-like understanding of the Constitution” is? I must admit that this concept intrigues me, and probably more than it should.
Posted by lanfranc | January 20, 2010, 12:21 pmRe: ‘Again, it seems to me that ALL PRESIDENTS of the US born before 1789 were dual citizens.”
All who were born before 1776 would be right, after July 4, 1776 the United States became a country.
Posted by smrstrauss | January 29, 2010, 4:24 pm1788-89 is more correct. The 13 colonies were essentially separate sovereign entities until the ratification of the Constitution.
Before that time, the sovereignty enjoyed by the US as a whole was not enough to qualify as a sovereign country, especially since the Continental Congress had no way of actually enforcing even those limited powers that it did have under the Articles.
Posted by lanfranc | January 29, 2010, 7:53 pmI think you’re confusing form with substance, Lanfranc. Although we surely align on the main issues of this post, I think the Continental Congress would have called itself a sovereign, and citizens of the states citizens of the union such as it was. However, you’re quite right to say that the federal government lacked almost any power, and individual citizens would’ve considered themselves citizens first of the state, and only secondarily (but still to some degree) citizens of the Union.
Posted by ACG | January 29, 2010, 7:56 pmI don’t really see that there was much substance behind the claim, either – when a government lacks the ability to legislate for its supposed territory, raise money for the armies, or even conduct a meaningful foreign policy (cf. negotiations with the European powers or the attempts to carry out an expedition against the Barbary pirates), there’s not really a whole lot of sovereignty going on there.
Posted by lanfranc | January 29, 2010, 8:15 pmRe: “1788-89 is more correct. The 13 colonies were essentially separate sovereign entities until the ratification of the Constitution.”
A matter of opinion. You know that the Continental Congress appointed ambassadors to France and other countries, Ben Franklin and John Adams being among them. These were not ambassadors of a state, but of the united states.
I forget when the first foreign country recognized the USA, but it was well before the Constitution.
This article cites a resolution of the Continental Congress that indicates that it considered that there were already citizens of the United States in 1777. Sure, they were only citizens of the United States because they were citizens of one of the 13 states, but still the report says that the ambassadors should not appoint someone who was not a Natural Born Citizen “thereof.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=CYQBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA107&dq=%22that+it+is+inconsistent+with+the+interests+of+the+United+States+to+appoint%22#v=onepage&q=%22that%20it%20is%20inconsistent%20with%20the%20interests%20of%20the%20United%20States%20to%20appoint%22&f=false)..
Posted by smrstrauss | January 29, 2010, 8:48 pmThe Constitution was completed at the Philadelphia Convention on September 17, 1787. On June 21, 1788 New Hampshire became the 9th State to ratify the Constitution, making the Constitution official and giving official birth to the Federal Republic form of government known as the United States of America. New Hampshire’s ratification simultaneously ended governance under the Articles of Confederation. States are still sovereign entities to this day operating within the United States under a common set of laws and principles. States were never intended or foreseen to give over so much power and decision making to the Federal Government. The Federal government was only meant for insuring the national defense and guaranteeing the rights and privileges afforded to individuals by the Constitution. Clarifying and ensuring equal civil rights? Yes. Redistributing wealth? No. But I digress. The bottom line is some say it was Sept 17, 1787 and others say June 21, 1788. I believe it has to be from the day that the Constitution became the official law of the land – and that would have been June 21, 1788. Before that date anyone who was born in their respective State or became a naturalized citizen of a State, was grandfathered in under Article II, Section I as being eligible to declare candidacy for office of President. Everyone born after ratification in the United States to two citizen parents is a natural born citizen and thus eligible to declare candidacy for the office of President. Article II, Section I speaks only to the eligibility of candidates to be President.
Posted by JBL | January 30, 2010, 12:29 am“States are still sovereign entities to this day operating within the United States under a common set of laws and principles.”
No, they’re not. The states have no monopoly on violence, they do not control their own foreign and trade policy, and they’re widely subject to the federal legal system. That is not a sovereign entity.
Posted by lanfranc | January 30, 2010, 6:16 amI gotto reiterate that the original post by this blogger is nothing but creative writing when the blogger writes:
“Bring this up to an Obama denialist, though, and you’re likely to hear about how a truly ancient U.S. Supreme Court decision – U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1897) – never bothered to declare that anyone born on American soil, regardless of parentage, is a “natural born citizen.” Because they failed to say as much explicitly, the story goes, they clearly implicitly rejected the idea. This, too, is false – and not just because of the tortured logic. The following is a precise quote from the case in question, unedited so you can see the context.”
The bottom line is Wong Kim Ark is a case about citizenship. Anyone with a half a brain today can look back on Mr. Ark’s case and see that he is clearly a citizen by birth.
But to then take that case and somehow reframe it to be the case that clarifies and defines Article II, Section I is an absurdity at best.
It’s security 101 to realize that it is not best practice to allow a person who has claim to more than one nationality to ascend to the most powerful position in that particular country. Particularly if that person has claim to citizenship and has ties in a country that is otherwise an enemy state.
Posted by JBL | January 30, 2010, 12:47 amSee, this is what I don’t understand. Any (sovereign) nation sets its own citizenship policies and decides for itself whom to extend such rights to. So if you want to exclude people with claims to foreign citizenships, doesn’t that effectively mean you’re allowing other nations to decide who can become President in the United States?
Posted by lanfranc | January 30, 2010, 6:25 amRe: “Everyone born after ratification in the United States to two citizen parents is a natural born citizen…”
Not true. You do not need both parents to be citizens and birth in the country. You only need one of those. It is like suspenders and a belt; you do not need both, just one.
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
And, the fact of being born in the USA is sufficient to make a Natural Born Citizen. It is, in fact, the original meaning of Natural Born (which simply means “born in the country”).
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)
Posted by smrstrauss | January 30, 2010, 4:33 pmForget about the suspenders AND a belt. A far more accurate representation would be simply using the suspenders. Two citizen parents and born on US soil is both front and back suspender straps fastened. One citizen parent and one foreign national parent whether on US soil or not is leaving either the front or back suspenders unfastened. Eventually the pants will lose support, fall and leave the person vulnerable.
Posted by JBL | January 30, 2010, 10:07 pmianfranc – Explain that to Prosecutors when they are attempting to extradite a suspect from one State to another. The name of the Country is the United StateS not the United ‘State’ of America. Each State has the right to a peaceful secession if it’s people believe that is a necessary course of action.
Posted by JBL | January 30, 2010, 4:41 pm