Comments on: Anatomy of an Obama Denialist Lie: Wong Kim Ark & Natural Born Citizenship

By: JBL

JBL — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:07:01 +0000

Forget 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.

By: JBL

JBL — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:41:24 +0000

ianfranc – 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.

By: smrstrauss

smrstrauss — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:33:02 +0000

Re: “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)

By: lanfranc

lanfranc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:25:54 +0000

See, 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?

By: lanfranc

lanfranc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 10:16:50 +0000

“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.

By: JBL

JBL — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:47:53 +0000

I 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.

By: JBL

JBL — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:29:22 +0000

The 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.

By: smrstrauss

smrstrauss — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:48:00 +0000

Re: “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)..

By: lanfranc

lanfranc — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:15:28 +0000

I 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.

By: ACG

ACG — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:56:48 +0000

I 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.