See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #501
   On April 28th, 2011 at 9:25 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

   ChapBix

   1) Trump did not impress me with his statements about how proud of himself he was for squeezing this BC out of Obama. Not classy in my opinion.

   At least he’s not sitting on Capitol Hill sweating in his office that the MSM will make him out to be Newt.

   2) Obama came across as a petulant child with his statement. He would have been better served, and we as well, going about his business without further comment. Not presidential at all.

   Like most liberal elists, he expects everyone to shut up and follow his lead. In their narrow worldview, having a degree from a dump like Harvard makes you smart.

2. #502
   On April 28th, 2011 at 9:33 pm, ChapBix said:

   On April 28th, 2011 at 6:07 pm, T-Bone said:

   I never imagined that I would have to figure this out myself and make sure it was on the up and up. I trusted our officals to do what they should and they didn’t even make an effort in this situation.

   As did I. Unfortunately, that was our mistake. Not that we could do much about it.

3. #503
   On April 28th, 2011 at 10:01 pm, drfredc said:

   Seems the folks at Lifelock are missing an opportunity here… They should be offering free coverage for presidential candidates who put a copy of their birth certificate up on the web…

4. #504
   On April 28th, 2011 at 11:32 pm, chapoutier said:

   There is NO reason given within the Constitution or the Federalist papers to give English common law precedence over Vattel.

   Right. Because English common law is only the bedrock foundation of our jurisprudence. But other than that tiny detail, absolutely no reason.

   But you are missing the bigger point. You can, at the very least, agree they did not specifically and clearly cite to Vattel. Thus, the definition is ambiguous. Thus the Courts decide. And thusly they have.

5. #505
   On April 29th, 2011 at 12:21 am, OK_Loyalist said:

   On April 28th, 2011 at 11:32 pm, chapoutier said:

   …. Thus, the definition is ambiguous. Thus the Courts decide. And thusly they have.

   Oh so just anyone can run for office? How about running the gerbil out of Ol’ BenGay’s bum?

6. #506
   On April 29th, 2011 at 2:20 am, rightwingrocker said:

   Thus the Courts decide. And thusly they have.

   Yep.

   1814.

   RWR
   http://www.rightwingrocker.com

7. #507
   On April 29th, 2011 at 2:23 am, rightwingrocker said:

   Unfortunately, that was our mistake.

   Indeed it was.

   Now is the time to learn the lessons of citizenship, before it’s too late.

   It’s frankly ALWAYS BEEN your responsibility to figure it out for yourself and make sure things are on the up-and-up.

   I learned this lesson some time ago. What a wake-up call. I’m sure you are experiencing the same thing.

   … and that is nothing but good for America!

   RWR
   http://www.rightwingrocker.com

8. #508
   On April 29th, 2011 at 2:37 am, Ellyk said:

   At this point, Obama is a failure for a plethora of reasons… fuel prices, weakened dollar, out of orbit deficit. Not to mention he’s extremely unlikable, smarmy, and condescending.

   He’s a liar (see MM’s top post on the front page of site for just the latest example). I don’t like the company he keeps (neighborhood, documented and _un_ documented white house visitors, nor the idiotic people he chooses to appoint to rediculous posts). His wife is a soiled pair of gloves and an apron short of a true gardner. She can run a sprint in front of the cameras once or twice a year but until she looses that hind end I’m not interested in hearing her tell me how to eat. I don’t work for the Service Employees International Union, so I’m not really impressed with the sweet “behind the scenes” deal she’s trying to hook up for them.

   I think their combined presentation is laughably, horrendous (her large one and his gloating one). Their “optics” are pathetic – don’t tell me I have to “take a haircut” and then go on yet another vacay, play another game of golf, hold another party, or go compaignin on my dime. Don’t tell me you’re a Christian and then let Easter go by without any mention of the Holy Day let alone those being persecuted around the world for celebrating it.

   If he’s so darned wonderful why does he have to campaign so hard? Oh, I know he has fat cats and union bosses to wine and dine and pretend to care about, but really, he sure has to try aweful hard doesn’t he? And the missus? Her failed military family outreach campaign was quite “a reach”, trust me, from someone who has a large gathering of friends and family in the military – Michelle and Jill’s silly act was not exactly taken as “sincere”.

   I don’t like him. I would not want to live next door to him, I would not want to work with the guy and I feel sorry for anyone who does. He acts like an arse and so does his wife. I don’t care one wit what color or percentaqe of colors make up his pigmented or non pigmented skin. Frankly, I’m really tired of he and the media and goof offs like Woopi Goldberg throwing that lame excuse around. I come from a a very blended family – and I’m proud of our heritage, but that’s not where it’s at. It’s what’s in someone’s soul, someone’s character that matters.

   Obama should have procured and presented the proper documentation when it was first requested. There were a whole lot of excuses (ahem, I use that word generously) supplied as to why he couldn’t. I guess it does exist doesn’t it? Experts can pour over it with a fine toothed comb. And I hope they do. Because history has shown us – desperate people do desperate things. And any sitting president who flies on our dime to sit on a daytime gossip show, in my book, sure looks desperate.

   I would never vote for him. And for the time we suffer him being in the office, I have very little respect him. When it comes down to it, he hasn’t EARNED it.

   And I’m just one of MANY.

   Sorry for the rant. /off

9. #509
   On April 29th, 2011 at 3:42 am, Ray said:

   On April 29th, 2011 at 2:37 am, Ellyk said:

   God Bless You Ellyk,

   Too late for me to opine right now. Got to get up early.

   God Bless You. God Bless You. God Bless You.

10. #510
    On April 29th, 2011 at 8:52 am, Ray said:

    Ellyk, I just read your post a second time and love it just as much.

    I would hate to live next door to you and get on your bad side.

    So very well said.

    Thank you. Please, Rant On.

11. #511
    On April 29th, 2011 at 11:22 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    at 2:37 am, Ellyk said:

    seconded….

12. #512
    On April 29th, 2011 at 12:32 pm, thejim said:

    You are correct, and Yes there are many of us that agree. RANT ON!

13. #513
    On April 29th, 2011 at 1:00 pm, Green eyed Lady said:

    Well done, Ellyk…
    **********

    Newly released documents from Barack Obama Sr.’s immigration file, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, justify “birther” doubts about the nativity story on which Barack Obama based his presidential campaign.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_obama_lie_that_drove_the_b.html

14. #514
    On April 29th, 2011 at 1:48 pm, T-Bone said:

    thirded…

15. #515
    On April 29th, 2011 at 7:54 pm, Ellyk said:

    Aw thanks, Ray. And for the record I adore my neighbors. They’re wonderful people, and not out to destroy the country.

    Green eyed lady – thanks for sharing that. Really interesting info Cashill is exposing. Definately not the fairy tale Obama would have us all believe.

    It’s too bad… the shame isn’t that he came from a horribly dysfunctional family, it’s that in his desire to be marketable he’s covered it all up and re-written it. It’s dishonorable and I would imagine, a slap in the face to those that were there.

    If he lies about these things (and apparently hasn’t come to terms with them) what else is he capable of?

16. #516
    On April 29th, 2011 at 8:01 pm, a crapweasel said:

    After seeing this video I am 100% birther now.

    It downloads a MOV that’s about 170MBs. It’s pretty interesting maybe even damning.

17. #517
    On April 29th, 2011 at 8:16 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Well, if you believe the President is required to be a natural born citizen, then you’re “crazy”. Or maybe a racist. Or a crazy racist.

    Americans have been sufficiently dumbed down to not understand the simple language of their own Constitution. The founders wrote natural born, not native born. Citizen was not enough, native born was not enough, they required a natural born citizen only as CIC.

    Now those who do understand it are “crazy”.

    Welcome to 1984

18. #518
    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:19 pm, BOB said:

    The founders wrote natural born, not native born. Citizen was not enough, native born was not enough, they required a natural born citizen only as CIC.

    The founders probably would not have liked having a CIC who could not have possibly passed even the lowest level security clearance, if he had been required to do so. However, it’s OK if he has control of American’s nuclear weapons?

    Terminal political correctness has almost completed its destruction of America.

19. #519
    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:20 pm, chapoutier said:

    Americans have been sufficiently dumbed down to not understand the simple language of their own Constitution.

    They were already dumbed down in 1898?

20. #520
    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:23 pm, Ray said:

    Investors Business Daily
    by Crapweasel Eugene Robinson

    This just in: President Obama has proved, yet again, that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States. Which we already knew — “we” meaning those of us who believe there is such a thing as objective reality.

21. #521
    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:24 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

22. #522
    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:26 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    They were already dumbed down in 1898?

    Wong did not decide Article II eligibility.

23. #523
    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:49 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On April 29th, 2011 at 9:26 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    They were already dumbed down in 1898?

    Wong did not decide Article II eligibility.

    It bears repeating.

24. #524
    On April 29th, 2011 at 10:04 pm, Hiraghm said:

    On April 28th, 2011 at 10:12 am, cheapseat said:

    Folks, the question of where Obama was born and who his parents were is settled. His mother was an American citizen, and he was born in Hawaii.

    His mother’s citizenship is irrelevant. Women couldn’t even vote, or in some cases hold property at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Vattel held that a child’s natural rights passed through the father. There is no reason to belief that the Founding Fathers would accept the mother’s citizenship as preferential to the father’s.

    For one thing, that still leaves the dilemma; we want a Commander in Chief with no foreign allegiances. Even if his mother was a citizen, unless his father was as well, he has split loyalties, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding (and Obama has protested that he’s a Christian while egregiously ignoring or being party to distortions of that religion), that he’s not a Moslem (in spite of the affinity he’s demonstrated for Moslem culture and nations), that he wants to reduce the deficit after sending it through the roof and trying to send it higher. His word cannot be trusted.)

    I don’t suggest he’s loyal to the British crown; I submit that, having a foreigner for a father, a foreigner for a stepfather, spending a large portion of his formative years raised in foreign countries, far outweighs the technicality that his mentally aberrant mother was born in the U.S.

    In this case, it is fortunate that, while it’s probably both parents must be citizens, it’s certain that the father must be.

    It is unfortunate that the country is controlled by politically correct, feckless politicians and media elites.

25. #525
    On April 29th, 2011 at 10:38 pm, Ray said:

    On April 29th, 2011 at 7:54 pm, Ellyk said:
    Aw thanks, Ray.

    ….I would imagine, a slap in the face to those that were there.

    I am not so sure about that. Pappy Dunham had him hanging out with the well known commie “Frank Marshall Davis”, whom the FBI has a 601 page file on. Pappy Dunham, no doubt, had a file of his own. “Uncle Frank” was commie pals with Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett. Uncle Frank stinks to high heaven and could well have even been the father. I think they are all dancing in hell, knowing what they created. Just sayin…

    If he lies about these things (and apparently hasn’t come to terms with them) what else is he capable of?

    God only knows?

26. #526
    On April 30th, 2011 at 12:56 am, chapoutier said:

    Wong did not decide Article II eligibility.

    It decided the essential definition also contained in Article II.

    There is no reason that definition of “natural born” would not be applicable in other cases.

27. #527
    On April 30th, 2011 at 5:03 am, Ellyk said:

    On April 29th, 2011 at 10:38 pm, Ray said:
    On April 29th, 2011 at 7:54 pm, Ellyk said:
    Aw thanks, Ray.

    I am not so sure about that. Pappy Dunham had him hanging out with the well known commie “Frank Marshall Davis”, whom the FBI has a 601 page file on. Pappy Dunham, no doubt, had a file of his own. “Uncle Frank” was commie pals with Vernon Jarrett, father-in-law of Valerie Jarrett. Uncle Frank stinks to high heaven and could well have even been the father. I think they are all dancing in hell, knowing what they created. Just sayin…

    Very true.

    I remember reading that the Obama camp was overtly protective of his Grandmother being interviewed. I’d wondered if it was because being in her advanced years they thought she might slip up and stray from the narrative, but I also wondered if there was anything critical or negative she might have said about him. On more than one occassion he referred to her in less than a flattering light. After raising him to the large degree that she did, I do wonder if she might have felt any sleight. Or maybe to her, getting thrown under the bus was a small price to pay..

    It would be sad if it weren’t so diabolical.

28. #528
    On April 30th, 2011 at 7:38 am, Ray said:

    DECONSTRUCTING OBAMA by Jack Cashill
    C-Span Book-TV

29. #529
    On April 30th, 2011 at 9:54 am, thejim said:

    I still want to see what Corsi has to say about the whole thing, and there are questions to be answered yet. OBambi is a fiction of somebody’s imagination, maybe just the gullible citizens that voted for him.

30. #530
    On April 30th, 2011 at 10:55 am, Virginia Patriot said:

    There is no reason that definition of “natural born” would not be applicable in other cases.

    Except that the founders did not write native born they wote natural born. There is a difference that you would like to ignore but was essential to the founders desire to prevent any but those with sole allegiance to the United States from becoming President.

31. #531
    On April 30th, 2011 at 11:41 am, BOB said:

    On April 30th, 2011 at 9:54 am, thejim said:
    I still want to see what Corsi has to say about the whole thing, and there are questions to be answered yet. OBambi is a fiction of somebody’s imagination, maybe just the gullible citizens that voted for him.

    You got that right. It’s also interesting to read what a scumbag his father, who never was an American citizen and prevents Barry from ever being eligible to be president, was.

    New stuff through the FOIA:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/harvard_and_state_department_g.html

32. #532
    On April 30th, 2011 at 1:16 pm, Ray said:

    I Guess I Missed This One

    Up until August 20, 2009, the US State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual stated – with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark – in 7 FAM 1116.2-1(c):

    c. Pursuant to this ruling, it has been considered that:

    (1) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;

    This was the language used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations from 1995 through August 20, 2009 in the Foreign Affairs Manual. Please note that the words “considered” and “generally” are in italics placed by the State Department. Such italics emphasize that the practice stated above has never been clarified as law, so it is simply “considered” to be the law.

    On this point, the Foreign Affairs Manual had been a rational document in that it reflected the true state of affairs. It stated the common “interpretation”, but it refrained from listing what was “considered” as if it was actually “the law”. Such rationality was good enough for both the Clinton and Bush administrations… but not for the Obama administration. This disrespect for prior administrations and law must be part of the CHANGE promised in his campaign.

    The link provided above (attached to the Date of August 17, 2009), refers to a snapshot taken of this section of the manual by the Way Back Machine for 2009 (at the wonderful Internet Archive) on August 17, 2009. If you look into the actual URL link, it shows the date it was taken which corresponds with the calendar of snapshots. At the top of that page, you will see – “(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)” – which informs you that the page had read this way since 1995.

    The next date listing a snapshot on the calendar of snapshots is August 30, 2009 . And this is the first snapshot which contains the current – scrubbed – edition of the Foreign Affairs Manual, which – with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark – states:

    d. “Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

    That is a vastly different statement. The rational discussion of the two prior administrations was replaced by the desperate (to protect) Obama administration on August 21, 2009. While the prior edition of the manual went only so far as to state that persons born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil were “considered” to be US citizens, Obama’s scrubbed edition has struck the limited holding of Wong Kim Ark and replaced it with his own opinion which unequivocally declares the children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.

    This scrubbing took place shortly after we discovered Justice Gray had been appointed to the Supreme Court by a British subject usurper named Chester Arthur.

    This reeks of self-serving propaganda since Gray’s limited “holding” only applied to those “permanently domiciled” here (like President Arthur’s father, a British subject alien at the time of Arthur’s birth). The holding in Wong Kim Ark did not cover children born in the US of persons who were only here temporarily such as Obama’s father. Hence, the need for scrub a dub dub dub.

    Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute. But there was no official change in the law. The manual was simply scrubbed… along with the Constitution.

    by Leo Donofrio

33. #533
    On April 30th, 2011 at 1:28 pm, Ray said:

    If Obama were any kind of a man at all, I believe I would sit down and cry for him. There is no doubt in my mind that every day that goes by, he learns a little more about his parents, none of which is very pretty.

    God show him the path of righteousness before the Reichstag mysteriously….

34. #534
    On April 30th, 2011 at 7:28 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Yeah, we wouldn’t want to remove a flaming socialist who is illegally occupying the Oval Office because on a such an insignificant technicality of violating the Constitution because he isn’t a natural born citizen in order to destroy the country.

    We’ll all be better off if we just lay down like sheep an look the other way.

    5 posted on Saturday, April 30, 2011 3:26:12 PM by Defend Liberty

    Found at freerepublic

35. #535
    On April 30th, 2011 at 8:37 pm, BOB said:

    It’s bad enough that the Socialist Democrats are happy to trash the Constitution to get and keep their Socialist/Marxist usurper illegally in the White House, but even worse are the so called “conservatives” who ostensibly care about the Constitution cheering them on.

36. #536
    On April 30th, 2011 at 11:02 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    On April 30th, 2011 at 8:37 pm, BOB said:
    It’s bad enough that the Socialist Democrats are happy to trash the Constitution to get and keep their Socialist/Marxist usurper illegally in the White House, but even worse are the so called “conservatives” who ostensibly care about the Constitution cheering them on.

    Yeah, when I saw who all enlisted in the Alinsky on “birthers” I was sure we’d lost the Republic. Most of the people we should have been able to count on to be able to read and comprehend that citizen is not the requirement, native born is not the requirement, natural born is the requiement, were too afraid of being called names.
    Or they were in on changing the Constitution without amnedment.

37. #537
    On May 1st, 2011 at 4:26 am, MuscleDaddy said:

    The thing about resistance to this ‘new & improved’ Birth Certificate?

    It’s barely about whether-or-not he was born in the US anymore.
    – MD

38. #538
    On May 1st, 2011 at 9:59 am, Virginia Patriot said:

    Prepare yourselves for the first anchor baby President, born to illegal aliens with no loyalty to the United States or its citizens. It will happen, how quickly depends on how soon we surrender our country with another amnesty. Once that happens, its very soon.

39. #539
    On May 1st, 2011 at 4:25 pm, rightwingrocker said:

    From Wong:
    

    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. – Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray

    FYI

    RWR
    http://www.rightwingrocker.com

40. #540
    On May 1st, 2011 at 6:13 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

    Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, in the Wong decision. That is what the founders meant by natural born citizen in Article II Sec.1.

    OweBowMao in ineligible.

41. #541
    On May 1st, 2011 at 6:17 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    OweBowMao is ineligible.

    He’s in deep if any of his deceptions ever see the light of day.

42. #542
    On May 1st, 2011 at 6:20 pm, BOB said:

    On May 1st, 2011 at 6:13 pm, Virginia Patriot said:
    it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
    Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, in the Wong decision. That is what the founders meant by natural born citizen in Article II Sec.1.

    OweBowMao in ineligible.On May 1st, 2011 at 6:13 pm, Virginia Patriot said:
    it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
    Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen, in the Wong decision. That is what the founders meant by natural born citizen in Article II Sec.1.

    OweBowMao in ineligible.

    No doubt, but the Obots will always say we are Wong.

43. #543
    On May 1st, 2011 at 9:40 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    The Constitution requires that the President of the United States must be a natural born citizen: Article II, section 1, pa. 5: “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 Person 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.”
    If “natural born citizen” is a synonym for “citizen,” then there is no reason for adding the exception “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” None at all. Being a citizen is not sufficient, unless you happened to be alive when the Constitution was adopted.

    So what, then, is a “natural born citizen”? To answer that question definitively will require a full examination of the concepts and history of citizenship.

    Types Of Citizenship: Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis, Natural Born, Native Born, Naturalized

    Jus soli citizenship: “Jus soli” is a Latin phrase meaning “law of the soil.” Jus soli citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on the location of his or her birth.

    Jus sanguinis citizenship: “Jus sanguinis” is a Latin phrase meaning “law of the blood.” Jus sanguinis citizenship is any citizenship that inheres in a person based on his or her ancestry.

    Native born citizenship: A native born citizen is one whose citizenship derives from the facts of his birth, and who becomes a citizen at the moment of birth. In both US and British law, those born within the sovereign territory of the country or born to parents who are citizens (subjects) of the country when the person is born are native citizens (subjects.) Native born persons are said to have “birthright citizenship.” Note that one can be “native born” either by the “jus soli” principle or by the “jus sanguinis” principle.

    Naturalized citizenship: A naturalized citizen is one whose citizenship is granted by statute or by the decision or act of a sovereign.

    Natural born citizenship: A natural born citizen is one whose citizenship is beyond dispute, not synthetic, not subject to conflicting claims, not granted by statute or by any act of a sovereign, but inheres naturally in the person according to principles that don’t depend on laws or decisions of a sovereign. [The rest of this essay will fully justify this definition]

    The 14th Amendment created an implicit distinction among 14th Amendment native-born citizens, and statutory native-born citizens. A 14th Amendment native-born citizen is any person who (a) was born in the United States, and (b) was subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of his or her birth. In contrast, a statutory native-born citizen is a person who does not qualify for birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, but receives U.S. citizenship, at birth, by laws enacted by Congress. For example, foreign-born children of American parents do not receive citizenship from the 14th Amendment; such children acquire U.S. citizenship, at birth, by statute.

    So those born outside the United States to parents who are US citizens at the time of the person’s birth are both native citizens and also naturalized citizens, since their citizenship is a) granted to them by an Act of Congress (based on Congress’ Constitutional authority “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”) and b) effective from the instant of their birth, based on the fact that the person’s parents were US citizens at that moment.

    Similarly, it is necessary to distinguish between Constitutional and statutory natural born citizens:

    •”Constitutional natural born citizen” refers to the term “natural born citizen” when it appears in the Constitution or in a Constitution-related document such as a Supreme Court decision. It refers to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides such meaning to be.
    •”Statutory natural born citizen” refers to someone who is deemed a “natural born citizen” by Federal or State law.
    These distinctions are not my invention. The U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual—7 FAM 1130 (page 9) says:

    …the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes
    If we were to define “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who is a “citizen at birth”, our definition of “natural born citizen” would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines “citizen at birth”. Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are “citizens at birth”. Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S.—including children of illegal immigrants—could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.

    H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant “citizenship at birth” to children of illegal immigrants. If Congress were to pass H.R.1940, it would alter the meaning of “citizen at birth”, and therefore would alter our statutory definition of natural born citizen. If H.R.1940 were enacted, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could no longer be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.

    Is “Natural Born Citizen” Equivalent To “Natural Born Subject” As Defined By English Common Law?

    The argument is made that “natural born citizen” means the same thing that “natural born subject” means in English common law, except for the differences in meaning between a subject and a citizen. That idea is false. The full proof of that assertion is presented below, in the section entitled “The Semantics Of Natural Born Subject In English Common Law.” The short version (executive summary) is as follows:

    The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.”

    Therefore, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the United States. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions other than for those who were citizens when the Constitution was adopted.

    The way we in the US have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the “natural born Citizen” clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators (“nine Years a Citizen of the United States”) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States”) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be “Citizen of the United States” for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within “Citizens of the United States” and not within “natural born Citizens.” This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of “natural born Citizens.”

    So equating the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to a “natural born subject” would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the “natural born Citizen” clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.

    But the argument is also made that “natural born citizen” differs from “natural born subject” in two ways, not just one: 1) The difference in meaning between a subject and a citizen, and 2) “natural born citizen,” unlike “natural born subject,” excludes naturalized citizens. But this thesis also is easily falsified:

    Firstly, as soon as a second difference is posited, the entire rationale for the argument collapses utterly. That rationale is based on the premise that US citizenship law derives directly from English common law regarding who is or is not a British subject. But if “natural born citizen” differs in meaning from “natural born subject” in any way other than is required by the fact that the US has citizens and Britain has subjects, that invalidates the only premise and justification for defining the US term based on the definition of the British term. It breaks the symmetry, and sets the precedent that the meaning can differ in other ways as well. In other words, if the meaning of the two terms differ in at least one respect other than the difference between subject and citizen, what prevents them from being different in yet a third way? Or a fourth? And so on, ad infinitum.

    Secondly, the historical facts are clear and undeniable, and are strongly supported by Supreme Court rulings: English common law was the basis for the common law of the original British colonies, and then of the original States of the Union, but was not the basis for the common law of the United States Federal government.

    The framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

    One reason such is the case is because the US was founded as a Constitutional Republic, not as a monarchy. The founding principles were different, and in fact were an explicit rejection of key foundational principles of English law and English government. Another issue was simply that each colony was founded at a different time, adopted English common law as its own at the moment of its founding, but then evolved its own common law going forward, independently of Great Britain and the other colonies. So there was no common “common law” among the founding States!

    Finally, words and terms of art have the meanings they do because of their utility in the culture and society that uses them. New words and phrases are created with particular meanings, and existing words and phrases are given new meanings, because those new meaning serve the purposes of those who use them, and old meanings no longer do. So that raises the question of the purpose or intent of the purely American term “natural born citizen,” especially in the context of the new Constitutional Republic being created by those at the Constitutional Convention.

    Original Intent

    In Alexander Hamilton’s first draft of the U.S. Constitution, a person had to be “born a citizen” of the United States in order to be eligible to serve as president. However, in July 1787, John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, recommending that the presidential eligibility requirement be changed from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen”. The stated purpose of the change was to exclude “foreigners” from the presidency:

    “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
    From this information alone, we may infer that:

    •To the members of the he Constitutional Convention, the words “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” meant different things. Whatever set of persons is defined by the membership requirement “natural born citizen,” it’s a different set than the one defined by the membership requirement “born a citizen.” Since it is fair to conclude, in context, that the wording change was intended to further restrict who would be eligible to be President, it must be the case that not all those who are citizens from the instant of birth are also “natural born citizens.”
    •Someone who was “born a citizen” of the United States might also be a “foreigner” in some sense; but a “natural born citizen” is not a foreigner, at least not in the same sense.
    •”Born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” pertain only to one’s status at the time of one’s birth. Consequently, the wording change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” could not have excluded from the presidency persons who became foreigners during adulthood. The change could have, at most, only excluded persons who were “foreigners” when they were born.
    The wording change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” doesn’t make any sense—it would not have excluded anyone not already excluded by the “born a citizen” requirement—unless the term “natural born” is understood as more restrictive than “native born.” To fully eliminate the possibility of someone who could possibly be classified as a foreigner becoming President, the meaning of “natural born citizen” would have to include only persons who, from birth, owed allegiance to the United States exclusively and did not acquire, since birth, any foreign allegiance or nationality.

    The change from “born a citizen” to “natural born citizen” would not have provided any additional protection against foreign influence in the presidency—that is, Jay’s wording change could not have barred from the presidency anyone who was not already barred by the “born a citizen” requirement—unless the term “natural born citizen” meant a person who was not a “foreigner” (a citizen or a subject of any foreign country) since birth.

    John Jay’s letter to Washington establishes the fact that the Framers were worried about the undivided loyalty of the President, and thought that the requirement that he be a “natural born citizen” would be sufficient to prevent anyone with foreign allegiance (anyone who could be claimed as a subject or citizen of a foreign sovereign) from serving as President. But how could that be, if “natural born citizen” differs from “natural born subject” solely in the difference between a subject and a citizen? A British “natural born subject” could have multiple nationalities, and owe allegiance to multiple sovereigns. And many nations claim anyone with at least one parent (sometimes it must be the father, sometimes it must be the mother, sometimes both) who is a citizen or subject of that nation as a citizen/subject also.

    In view of all the above facts and reasoning, it is beyond any possibility of dispute that the only way the “natural born citizen” requirement can prevent a person from having allegiance to a foreign sovereign is if its meaning is the same as the one de Vattel defined and labelled “les naturel, ou indigenes,” and which a professional translator translated into English as “natural born citizen” just a few short years after the “natural born citizen” requirement was written and ratified in the new US Constitution. Literally and normatively, the words “les naturel, ou indigenes” mean “the natural ones, the natives.” So why did the translator render them into English as “natural born citizen,” unless it was his expert opinion that the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution matched the meaning of the concept defined by de Vattel, where de Vattel specifies the purest form of citizenship as requiring both jus soli (“law of the soil”) citizenship and jus sanguinis (“law of the blood”) citizenship—with BOTH parents being citizens?

    Clearly, if both your parents are citizens (or subjects) of the same sovereign, and you were born in that same sovereign’s territory, then and only then is it impossible for any foreign sovereign to have a claim to your allegiance under the law of nations as commonly understood. John Jay’s request to Washington makes no sense otherwise. If that reasoning is sound, then “natural born citizen” must have been intended to have the same meaning as de Vattel defined for his term-of-art phrases “les naturels, ou les indigenes.”

    Consider again Article II, section 1, pa. 5: “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 Person 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.” That limits who may be President to persons who meet the following requirements:

    •Those who are 35 years old or older, AND
    •Those who have been a resident of the US for 14 years or longer, AND
    ◦Those who are natural born citizens, OR
    ◦Those who were US citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted
    Why did the Constitutional Convention include that last exception, allowing those who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted to be President?

    Before answering that question, consider the case of Congressman Smith. He was born in South Carolina before the American Revolution. At the time of the Revolution, he was not yet an adult. His parents were British loyalists, and fought against the Revolution. But after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution in 1787, he was elected to Congress. But his right to be seated was challenged on the basis that he was not a citizen, due to the actions of his parents.

    James Madison himself spoke in defense of the fact that Mr. Smith was a citizen. The reasoning he used is decisive with respect to understanding the reason for the exception in the Constitution to the “natural born citizen” requirement.

    Madison essentially argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen because of where he was born, and because he was a minor when his parents sided with the British loyalists against the American Revolutionaries. He focused on that point, because he obviously felt that any adult who sided with the British loyalists would not qualify as citizens, regardless of where they were born (he explains the reason for that.) Bear in mind that the Constitution allows naturalized citizens to serve in Congress, there is no requirement that one have “birthright citizenship” (whose normative definition means either “jus soli” OR “jus sanguinis” citzenship (OR, not AND.)) But Madison nevertheless argued that Mr. Smith was a citizen from birth, by reason of his place of birth alone, and explicitly not due to his parentage, because (as Madison argues) his parents never were US citizens at all.

    Madison’s argument prevailed, and Mr. Smith was seated as a Congressman. The Congress accepted Madison’s argument that Mr. Smith had birthright citizenship solely due to the location of his birth in South Carolina—when South Carolina was a British Colony, and not yet a State of the United States. By that same logic, most residents of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted were native citizens of the US by their place of birth alone.

    So, based on Madison’s argument (which Congress accepted,) if “natural born citizen” means simply “native born,” or means essentially the same as “natural born subject” (differing only to the extent that a citizen differs from a subject, and also excluding those whose citizenship was acquired by naturalization) then any citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted would satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, so there would be no need for the exception, and its inclusion in the Constitution makes no sense. No sense at all.

    But if “natural born citizen” means “born on US soil, with parents who were US citizens when their child was born,” then it would in fact be true that no one alive at the time could have satisfied the “natural born citizen” requirement, in which case there is a good reason for the exception.

    So the evidence is clear, compelling and irrefutable: The reason the Constitutional Convention required that the President (and later, by Amendment, the Vice President) be a “natural born citizen” is that they were concerned that the person who would be head of State, chief executive and Commander-In-Chief of the US armed forces have absolutely no conflicts of interest, legal obligations or loyalties to any foreign sovereigns or foreign powers.

    Some nations claim you as their citizen or subject based on where your were born, some based on who you your parents were (father and/or mother,) and some based on both together. By requiring that the President be born at a location where the US is sovereign, any foreign claim on the President to allegiance based on his place of birth is precluded. By requiring that the President be born to parents who are solely US citizens, any foreign claim on the President to allegiance based on his parentage is precluded.

    You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it’s not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it’s what the Constitution requires. And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same. And get away with it. Is that really what you want?
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2713091/posts?page=30#30

    Well, chappy?

44. #544
    On May 2nd, 2011 at 9:56 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On April 28th, 2011 at 11:32 pm, chapoutier said:

    There is NO reason given within the Constitution or the Federalist papers to give English common law precedence over Vattel.

    Right. Because English common law is only the bedrock foundation of our jurisprudence. But other than that tiny detail, absolutely no reason.

    Chap, you claim:
    “English common law is only the bedrock foundation of our jurisprudence.”

    I challenge you to show me that “bedrock foundation” in the founding document of this nation: the Declaration of Independence.

    The “bedrock foundation” that I find in the Declaration of Independence is composed of two things:

    1) Natural Law
    2) Biblical Law

    Our Founders founded this country on:

    “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”

    The “Laws of Nature” is Natural Law.

    The “Laws of … Nature’s God” is Biblical Law.

    When the Founders considered how to apply the Laws of Nature to the conduct and affairs of nations, they looked to the work of Emmerich de Vattel:

    “THE LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”

    George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

    And to the second “bedrock foundation”, Bibilical Law,
    (the “Laws of … Nature’s God”),
    this Democratic President had it right:

    The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

    If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

    - President Harry S. Truman