I would like to address an issue that is apparently of concern to a significant number of people. In my “Ask Fred” column, several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose. They contend that at least one of his parents were required at the time of his birth to have been a citizen for him to fulfill the constitutional requirement of eligibility, even though he was born on American soil.
To buttress these arguments, these writers have sent along a number of snippets, quotations and irrelevant comments by judges – often taken out of context – that they say support this position. They are all incorrect.
Let me make a couple of things very clear.
First, this is a legal question. Therefore, the test with regard to a question such as this is, “What would the Supreme Court likely hold if the question were presented to it?” This is a common exercise. There are many unresolved legal questions in our society. That is why we have the Court. It doesn’t mean that we have to like the decision or agree with it or that we even have to like the Supreme Court. That’s just the way we determine the law or the probable law in this country.
Second, I’m not touting Rubio. I think that he is a charismatic politician with a bright future. He is also untested on the national stage. I can see arguments for and against him. But I won’t sit back and watch him get caught up in a bunch of foolishness that misleads people about his eligibility to be President. Besides, this question affects others in addition to Rubio.
This may raise questions about Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nicki Haley, as well as Ted Cruiz, a candidate for the Senate in Texas. Mind you, a person has the right to believe anything he or she wants about anyone’s qualifications. But these questions that have been raised about the qualifications of these Republicans of great promise are simply not based upon precedent or history. Specifically, the chances that the Supreme Court would rule that Marco Rubio is not eligible to be President because of the citizenship of his parents at the time of his U.S. birth are less than remote, regardless of the future composition of the Court.
So why do I say this with such authority?
The answer is the English common law, which formed the basis for our own legal structure, opinions of our Founding Fathers, U.S. court decisions, and the 14th Amendment. Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution says, in part: “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….” Therefore, the issue becomes who is a “natural born citizen” (NBC)? It is not defined in the Constitution.
For many years there have been people who have contended that being born in the U.S. was insufficient to be a NBC and that one’s parents have to be citizens also. Comments to that effect have appeared in Congressional debates, treatises, and even in a court opinion or two many years ago. Some writers in recent years, arguing for the logic of this position, have pointed out that the requirement of natural born citizenship was intended to protect the nation from foreign influences. The fact that there are folks on this side of the issue should not be surprising. The meaning of almost every word of the Constitution has been argued over.
The fact is that these opinions are in the distinct minority. And in the rare instance when a judge has said that a NBC must have parents who are citizens, it has not been part of the decision in the case. Such comments have been gratuitous or “dictum,” as the lawyers say. That is, not necessary to the actual holding in the case.
Previous Court Scenarios
Where the issue has been squarely before a court, the result has been otherwise. In Lynch v Clark, decided in 1844, the issue was the right to inherit. The New York court held that the child, born in the U.S. of British subjects, could inherit because she was a NBC. In 1898 the Supreme Court in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark held the same way. Those cases are still good law today. These courts relied upon , in part, the English common law in deriving the intent of the Founders and pointed out that in England being born on English soil was sufficient for citizenship. The statements of James Madison, for one, make it clear that the Founders had no intention of deviating from the common law in this regard. This is further supported by official opinions of our nation’s Attorney Generals going back several years.
Finally, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which states, in part: “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.” Reading this together with Article 2 would indicate that the additional “natural born” requirement of Article 2 for a citizen to be eligible to be president meant that being “naturalized” would not suffice. He must be born here.
In 2011 the Congressional Research Service accurately stated, “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth” …by being born in the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents…”
While the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential candidate’s eligibility as a NBC, it is inconceivable that the Court would depose a president who was born on American soil. Some people love to excite and stir us up but we have an election coming up, folks. May I suggest that we resist the temptation to chase every rabbit that comes down the trail and focus, instead, on that?
- Fred Thompson
Here is what a true Constitutional expert has to say about this subject. There is no opinion in this article, only verifiable facts.
http://www.americanclarion.com/10184/2012/07/18/constitution-vattel-natural-born-citizen-framers-knew/
Wrong Fred. Our founders fought a war to free themselves from English Common Law definition of citizen (property of the state). The revolutionary nomenclature of “citizen” was found in the contemporary writings of Vattel (Benjamin Franklin carried a copy with him during edit of Constitution). That definition can be found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” which ties citizenship to parents (plural) nation of citizenship (primarily of the father). The Supreme court in Minor-V-Happersett referred to that “nomenclature” and has yet to rule in conflict with that original “nomenclature.”
Rubio was born after his mother was naturalized but not his father.
The Republican party is risking chaos by going down this same path the Dems have gone with Obama (assuming we ever see a non layered LFBC.)
Vattel’s book was not translated into English including the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” (instead of the word Vattel used, which was “indignes”) until TEN years after the US Constitution went into effect. The only possible source of the term Natural Born was therefore the common law, and that referred to the place of birth.
To be sure, we fought against the British, and we certainly did not adopt their laws. And citizens are different from subjects, I agree, and for sure. But citizens pull their pants on one leg at a time, and subjects pull their pants on one leg at a time—so who told you that subject and citizens differed in the Natural Born requirement? Who said that citizens require parents (two or even one) to be NB, while subjects merely require birth in the country? Surely if the writers of the Constitution had intended to make such a change they would have TOLD us. The specification about parents would be written into the Constitution or into a law or at least mentioned in the Federalist Papers. But it isn’t. And Vattel’s definition of NBC (rather than his definition of “indignes”) did not appear in English until ten years later. So, it cannot be from him.
The source of the term Natural Born comes indeed from the common law, as the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision noted, and it indeed refers to the place of birth, not the parents.
RIGHT Fred. Good grief – don’t you think Fred Thompson should KNOW whereof he speaks? Please don’t be a goofball and continue with your ignorant comments.!
Article II Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn’t have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed
[...] Read more at Fred Thompson’s America Share this:ShareFacebookTwitterEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]
1. There is already a SCOTUS natural born Citizenship precedent- Minor v Happersett 1875. There is much other settled law and evidence to back up the assertion that a natural born citizen is born in the USA of two American citizen parents on the birth date.
2. Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant, since it doesn’t address natural born Citizenship.
3. The Ted Cruz thing is a red herring, since Senators do not need to be natural born Citizens, which also means Rubio is eligible for his current job.
Thompson should stick to talk radio.
A short tutorial on NBC: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
GMiller, excellent link, thank you. Mr. Thompson is usually more agreeable than this latest bit of opinion. It’s shocking to this birther/verifier that so many Republicans seem to care not one bit about our Constitution. That the Democrats don’t care is not surprising. As such, it is my “uneducated” opinion that Rubio is not eligible and should not be picked as veep. Is this a reason why so few care about Obama’s history?
The language defines the subject. Natural born citizen is someone who did not have to do anything to become a citizen–he was a citizen by reason of his birth. Some are saying this means BOTH parents AND birth in the United States. But that is not the requirement to be a citizen by reason of birth. One must be born of at least ONE citizen parent OR be born in the United States. In the 1970′s, I was a US soldier, stationed in Germany. I was married to a German national. While we lived in Germany, a daughter was born to us. We went to the US consulate, where we were issued a “Certificate of United States Citizen Born Abroad,” and a US passport in her name.
She did not have to be naturalized. She did not have to do anything. She was and is a United States citizen. She just turned 35 last Novermber. She is eligible to run for the presidency of the United States. That’s on one American parent.
When the Constitution was approved, there was no one in the country whose parents had been born US citizens.
Plainly the Founders’ intent was to prevent someone with minimal ties to the United States, neither born here nor born to US citizens, from becoming president. The phrase “Manchurian Candidate” did not yet exist, but that is what they were trying to stop.
Rubio was born in the United States. He is therefore a citizen by his birth, not by naturalization. Nikki Haley and Ted Cruz, same story. “Birthers” are barking up the wrong tree with Obama. There is a serious question of his eligibility and citizenship, but it is not based on his birth. There are doubts about that Hawaiian birth certificate; maybe those doubts are justified. But that doesn’t matter. His mother was a US citizen. Therefore, at his birth, Barack Obama was a citizen.
But there IS a question. Barack Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and lived in Indonesia for a considerable part of his youth. It appears that Barry Soetoro may have applied for and received financial aid to attend Occidental College by claiming Indonesian citizenship, as a foreign student. Now, if he was adopted by an Indonesian citizen in Indonesia, and at the age of majority asserted Indonesian nationality–THAT may be a real problem. Not the place of his birth.
A telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will confirm that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen.
Well, you may be right on the affect that the circumstances you describe, but you are incorrect on HOW those results were achieved.
Article 1 Section 8 mandated the Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of naturalization”. Being a NEW NATION upon adoption of the Constitution such a mandate was required for the perpetuation of the society.
For some reason people tend to separate Citizenship and Naturalization, but, there is NO separation except as is set out in the distinguishing made in the processes of acquiring the Citizenship.
The 1790 “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization”" clearly established the “Birth Right” prerogative of U.S. Citizens that is historical known as the doctrine of Jus Sanguinis”, through the blood of the parents a child derives its Citizenship.
The 1790 Act went so far as to allow the children born to Citizen parents while abroad would be CONSIDERED AS natural born Citizens.
The 1795 Act walked that back allowing that such a child would be a “Citizen”, perhaps in recognition that the Congress had no authority to ‘enlarge, abridge or otherwise modify’ a provision of the Executive Articles except by the amendment process.
In reading and interpreting the words of the 1790 / ’95 Acts it is clear that during the period immediately after the adoption of the Constitution the ONLY possible circumstances to produce a U.S. natural born Citizen was to be born of Citizen parents, and after 1795, to be born within one of the several States. (Women were not mentioned in the Acts due to the FACT that women were always considered as being of the Citizenship of the husband / father; ergo, all married couples were both of the same Citizenship).
It is a fallacy that the 14th Amendment or the greatly flawed WKA case in ANY WAY affected the circumstances required to actually be a natural born Citizen. In order to amend any part of the Constitution the clear intent must be expressed in words that say so or the words that would require it.
The only possible source of Natural Born, since Vattel was not translated to include the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” until TEN years after the Constitution was in effect, was the common law. That was the commonly used meaning of the term, and it referred to the place of birth, not to the parents.
Mr. Thompson is entirely correct, and every BHO eligibility court case decided so far has agreed with him. That is because he is correct. This will never change. You can harp on what you think the Constitution means all you want, but we have the finest Governmental system of checks and balances ever devised, and the SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the Constitution.
You should stop listening to the rabid partisan fantasies of schlock legal theorists on the Internet, and realize that intelligent conservatives like Mr. Thompson are correct, and not traitors or idiots.
I am a liberal/moderate Democrat, but I try to take the time to express my respect and admiration when a Republican like Mr. Thompson or Sen. McCain stands for what is right against the nutball wing of the party.
As a small business owner, I many sane conservative friends. They all say one of two things when I mention Birthers: 1) “Are they still around? Why?” or 2) “I wish they would shut the heck up. They’re making us look like total frothing lunatics.”
Re “lies made by the Heritage Foundation.”
Why do you suppose that they would lie? What would be their motive?
And I suppose this Constitutional scholar writing in 1829 lied too:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And this Constitutional scholar, using the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law in 1803, was lying too?
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
Notice that the above quotation refers only to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
Well, with the laundry list of political legal eagles lining up to claim that anchor babies like Marco Rubio are Natural Born Citizens too, one must assume that the RNC intends to place an anchor baby on the ballot with Romney and they are prepared to burn the Constitution to do it. Apparently, they are prepared to lose in November too….
In the latest RNC effort to redefine Natural Born Citizen, clearing Rubio for the GOP ticket, once respected Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson enters the fray. Thompson wastes no time regurgitating the same lies that have protected Barack Obama from “birthers” concerned with Obama’s real birth place for four years now.
In a they did it, so can we, attempt to forever eliminate Article II Natural Born Citizen requirements for the offices of President and Vice President, Thompson repeats lies told by Heritage Foundation and left-wing lawyers for the Obama-nation in an overt attempt to silence the truth, that Marco Rubio and Barack Obama are both constitutionally ineligible for office, according to well-known constitutional history.
These legal eagles seem to have trouble defining anchor baby and Natural Born Citizen, even though the definitions and history are 100% clear on both.
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams200.htm
Sorry, this was posted in the wrong place. It should appear under the comments about the Heritage Foundation.
Re “lies made by the Heritage Foundation.”
Why do you suppose that they would lie? What would be their motive?
And I suppose this Constitutional scholar writing in 1829 lied too:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And this Constitutional scholar, using the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law in 1803, was lying too?
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
Notice that the above quotation refers only to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
Those who insist on thinking that a person is a “natural” American Citizen merely because he/she was born in America and, perhaps, not by way of a Caesarian Section have proved that they did not read the link. They are of the same mindset (?) of Bill O’Rudely. It is not mere ignorance, it is willful ignorance.
SURE it is:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Precisely – Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) is the only relevant case to the definition of a “natural born citizen,” in contrast to “a citizen by birth,” which is wholey irrelevant. Fred is a good enough attorney to realize that. He’s trying to obfuscate the issue to avoid the challenge to Rubio’s status. Regardless of the merits of Rubio becoming the VP candidate – this issue should and must prevail.
The only other “rational” argument that the issue should be ignored for Rubio’s eligibility… is, of course, the illegal “precedent,” which has been established by not pressing this issue against Osama Obama.
Therefore… if it’s “good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.”
But… we’d all be far better off… if… Fred turned is energies to prosecuting the fact that Osama Obama is not a “natural born citizen” as defined by the Supreme Court in the only relevant case – Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
Unfortunately… like Clarence Thomas has indicated about the Supreme Court’s avoidance of this case… Fred has chosen to give the PC BS opinion unsupported by any factual evidence, which continues to allow an utter imposter to occupy the highest office in the Land, and to perpetrate crimes against the Nation.
I was going to leave a comment but the folks that have straightened Fred out about the Supreme Court decisions which he used showed his ignorance of this particular issue. Fred would get killed in court. GMiller and Yarbrough nailed it and they deserve the gold star. Thompson’s article here was not much different that Bret Baier’s article about the subject at his blog where he was hammered into submission where he said there needs to be a national discussion about the issue.
Excellent comment! Thompson know as much about the constitution as Bill O’Reilly knows about gun laws!!
Well, let’s see what Minor v Happersett says about Presidential eligibility:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’7 and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
There you go, only 2 types of citizens in this country. You’re either born (natural-born) or naturalized. So, Minor v Happersett says that the President, Rubio, Jindal, etc are eligible…as long as they fulfill all the other requirements. Really, you should talk to a Constitutional scholar rather than listen to an internet wanna-be, you’ll get MUCH better information.
Correct…two types of citizen. Natural born falls into the category of citizen from birth. However, not all citizens from birth are ‘Natural’ born citizens. Simple.
That would make three categories: naturalized, native born of foreign parents (one or two) and Natural Born. But there are only two categories: naturalized and Natural Born. This was recognized widely as late as WWI in which men who were registering for the draft were asked first if they were citizens and then, if they were, were they naturalized or natural born citizens. Only two categories.
And it was recognized far before that, in 1829, when this was written:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And it was recognized by the Heritage Foundation about seven years ago:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And it has now been recognized by five state courts—Indiana, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona and Florida—on Obama, and one on McCain (New Hampshire, Hollisever vs McCain). Since the book by Vattel was not even translated into English to include the phrase Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution, the only possible source of the term would be from the common law, and that referred to the PLACE of birth—which is what Meese said.
“JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED “MINOR v HAPPERSETT” FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO ’08 ELECTION.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/
(gee…I wonder why?)
Did Fred vote in favor of Resolution 511 put forth by Claire McCaskill? Since the “vote” wasn’t recorded, I’d like to know.
And why does Fred wish the Electoral College be disbanded?
Hey Fred,
I like a few things I know about you, but if this is the limit of your legal ability, you’d better keep taking those acting jobs. If you were correct which you are not we should forget the Supreme Court decision Minor VS. Happerset and just allow anyone who says they are American to be elected president
Oh I forgot —- that’s already happened and you helped by your thoughtlessness!
But the Wong Kim Ark decision of the Supreme Court was AFTER Minor vs Happersett, and it stated in its ruling that the meaning of Natural Born citizen refers to the place of birth. The place of birth, not the parents.
False. The specific holding used only the words ‘citizen of the United States’ and did NOT find Wong Kim Ark to be ‘natural born’.
HERE are the actual words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That clearly says that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel) and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (thus not the parents) and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.
Thank you GMiller! It is refreshing to see that a few know the law. Either we are a nation of law, or a nation of men. I prefer a nation of law. I like Rubio, but he is Constitutionally ineligible to run.
Thanks for your good and correct information. If it was not an issue why would their be 8 attempts since 2002 to amend this wording in the constitution?? And, why would Obama be one of the sponsors to amend this wording?
Why those in Congress skirt this issue is further proof of a corrupt goverment.
If Rubio is choosen, their will be a huge uproar from the right and the left regarding his eligibility. He is a fine young man with a wonderful career ahead of him. I have no real objection to amending this wording in our constitution. But, to go against the present wording seems to follow Obama’s blantant disregard for our constitution.
The Wong Kim Ark case does address Natural Born status.
Here are the actual words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
As you can see, that ruling (six to two, one not voting) clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, that it refers to the place of birth (therefore not the parents) and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.
Here is what Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general had on this matter in his book:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
1. The quote from Minor v. Happersett is
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
So all it says is there is no doubt that a child born here of citizen parents is a NBC but there are of doubts of the child born in the here where one or both parents may not be citizens. The case does not make a ruling on their status, however.
In fact all the cases provided in your link do not make a ruling on the what is a NBC and simply point out that a child born here of citizens is a NBC or express an opinion outside the actual ruling.
False. The Minor case differentiates between A2S1 NBC and 14A citizen. It says there is no doubt that someone born here to 2 citizen parents is a 14A citizen by virtue of being an A2S1 NBC. However, they expressed doubts as to whether one born here of aliens is a 14A citizen. These doubts were removed by the Wong Kim Ark case…which in no way redefined A2S1 NBC.
But the Wong Kim Ark ruling was after Minor vs Happersett and it said that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
Poor Fred- he has fallen into the trap of trying to re-write the COTUS to suit the idea that the Founding Fathers did not know what they were doing. Wrong, they knew! As others have pointed out, the SCOTUS decided and cited in Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) that a NBC was born to TWO citizens at the time of birth. They could have been born here or naturalized- that is no difference. However- Saying that all that is relevant is that one be born on US soil, is not right! It is a two level qualification for the most important position that a person can be selected for. Only those who would serve the body politic in the highest position in the country, come under this level of scrutiny. For the person elected first to that office and anyone that stands in the line of accession to the office of POTUS must meet this test. The list of which office a holder can have and be in the line of accession has been modified when people that do not meet this test have been serving. Only those who have been elected by the people to their original billet can take on the POTUS responsibility.
.
George,
One Jack Maskill is responsible for the egregious restatement of Wong Kim Ark that resulted in the erroneous presentation of natural born citizen in the 2011 issue of the Congressional Research Service memorandum, according to a New Jersey attorney who is sensitive to “that sort of thing”. An article devoted to that very topic can be found here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/debunking-the-new-natural-born-citizen-congressional-research-propaganda/
Why should Sen. Thompson go to a web site representing folks whose crank legal views have been directly called without merit by 5 separate courts (in Tisdale, Allen, Voeltz, Purpura and Swensson/Powell/Farrar et al), several state elections commissions, two states attorney general (GA and NJ) and two courts of appeal?
Never mind that those courts were wrong in their interpretation.
Look over there! Nothing to see here.
And why do you always turn up at these debates? If your side has won and have truth behind you…why do you even care?
The Wong Kim Ark case followed the Minor vs Happersett case and hence would overturn int (if Minor were actually a ruling and not dicta), and the Wong Kim Ark case stated that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel) and that it refers to the PLACE of birth, and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is NATURAL BORN.
False. The DICTA in Wong Kim Ark said that NBC came from English Common Law…NOT the holding. The holding stated only that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. This makes sense given the fact that the question before the Court had nothing to do with A2S1.
Further, the definition of A2S1 provided in Minor is part of the holding because it was independent ground given to make the determination that Minor was a citizen without needing to construe 14a. But I assume you already know this.
You claim that the Wong Kim Ark quotation is dicta, but you are alone.
Five state courts and one federal court ruling just on Obama (and one, Hollister vs McCain, ruling on McCain) have all stated that the Wong Kim Ark case defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and that it refers to the place of birth. It is the Minor vs Happersett decision that is either dicta or irrelevant, since all it says is that if you have every possible way of being a Natural Born Citizen then your are for sure a NBC—but that does not say that you have to have both ways.
Thompson and Meese (Ronald Reagan’s attorney general) are right, and you are wrong.
The Wong Kim Ark case clearly stated the definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here are its actual words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
As you can see, the quotation says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel) and that in the common law it referred to the place of birth, not the parents, and that the same rule applied in Britain, in the 13 colonies, and the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
I like you Fred and I like how you think. I agree that we need to focus on this election as it is the most important one we will ever have.
As an aside, It seems these days that the legal system works to make the Constitution say what they want it to say rather the the original intent of our founders.
I give you Benjamin Franklin’s own words, “…“continually” and “frequently” consulted Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law” Here is an excerpt from that publication.
Book 1, Chapter 19, § 212. Citizens and natives:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
You know, as well as I do, that the Fourteenth Amendment talks about “naturalized ” citizens and not “natural born citizens.”
Keep up the good work, Fred. I really like your Facebook quips.
Hello Mr. Yarbrourgh, You made my day. Been Yahooing. First, Law of Nations, then SFC Graig Yarbrough, US Army (Ret)., then AllExperts. Remembered it took 2 citizen parents to be natural born and have said O is not natural born, but hadn’t seen it in writing before. Hope I don’t lose my bookmarks on you because I can’t wait to ask you a question. Hope you like conspiracies. I think there is a whistleblower or 2 is feeding us info on James Holmes. Do you?
Yes Franklin and the other leaders did read Vattel. But, guess what, they read a lot of other things too.
SFC Graig Yarbrough, US Army (Ret) seems to have the best and clearest commentary on this issue. Obviously, whatever references and sources the Founding Fathers used, there was a distinct differentiation made between NBC and ordinary citizenship at the time. The case law may or may not be relevant, but the distinction does exist.
BTW, I have a friend who was born in Germany to American parents during the post-WWII Occupation. He was required at the age of 18 to sign papers and swear an oath that he chose to be an American citizen. So, at the time, 40-something years ago, we were still very clear on specifying who was and was not a citizen.
SURE there is a distinction between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. Citizens can include naturalized citizens. Natural Born Citizens cannot include naturalized citizens. They include every other citizen OTHER than naturalized citizens. The largest group of this class are ALL the US citizens who were born in the USA, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law, and it refers to the PLACE of birth.
So why does the INS differentiate between native-born citizens and natural born citizens?
Please provide the SCOTUS holding that states that all citizens from birth are natural born citizens. You are simply assuming your point to prove your point….circular reasoning.
I did not say that all citizens from birth are NBCs. Nor did the US Supreme Court. It said that all children born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born. It is entirely possible that some US citizens at birth are not NBCs, but ALL of the US citizens born in the USA are NBCs.
I have quoted the Wong Kim Ark ruling repeatedly above. It quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
Many constitutional scholars hold that in addition to this clear ruling that other US citizens at birth, such as those born abroad to two citizen parents, may ALSO be eligible. But Meese disagrees with them, saying that it is not certain.:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
HOWEVER, he is certain that the children born in the USA are Natural Born Citizens.
You will find the words of the Wong Kim Ark ruling above.
So just because Franklin read Vattel’s book, it means the framers adopted his definition? (Which, BTW, reads entirely different in French; and the translation “natural born citizen” did not appear until 10 years *after* the Constitution was ratified. Were the framers time travelers or psychics?)
1) Most of the Founders spoke French.
2) The word used in French was ‘naturales’. Not too much of a stretch.
3) Just 10 years after the Constitution was ratified, the English translation chose to use the same words put forth for POTUS eligibility. Now why would that be? Because the people of the time knew what the Founders meant.
It is a stretch when the COMMON use of the term Natural Born was in the common law, and the writers of the Constitution were mainly lawyers and justices.
It is a stretch when John Jay wrote to Washington that the commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen, but Jay did not know whether or not Washington spoke French (he probably didn’t since he wrote personal letters to Lafayette in English) and so Jay could not know that Washington would know that “Natural Born Citizen” refers to the French world “indignes” in Vattel. If Jay had really been referring to Vattel and not to the common law, he could easily have said so, or said “a NBC—meaning one with two citizen parents, and not one as under the common law.” But he didn’t.
AND when the US Constitution is translated into French, did you think that the translations use the word “indignes” for Natural Born Citizen.
In any case, the world Natural Born Citizen was used in the common law, and it was not used in a US translation of Vattel until ten years after the US Constitution. The idea that the writers of the US Constitution would make a total change in the meaning of Natural Born from what they were familiar with, and what was common, and what the legal experts at the time assumed that they were referring to, to a completely new principle WITHOUT TELLING US—-is nutty.
Sorry, I should have pointed out that Vattel did not say that a “Naturales” citizen required two citizen parents. He said that an “indignes” required two citizen parents, and that was not translated into Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution. Thus it is extremely unlikely that when John Jay wrote to Washington that the commander in chief should be a Natural Born Citizen, that he was referring to the “indignes” of Vattel. He was referring to the far more commonly used common law—which is natural because Jay was indeed a lawyer and a justice.
Our founders chose their words very carefully. If there’s no difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, why did the founders use two different terms? Because the meaning is different! The way I understand it, “natural born” is born in the country of two “citizen” parents. Neither Barack Obama or John McCain are natural born. Just because they got away with it doesn’t make it a legal precedent.
Because citizen includes naturalized citizens and natural born citizens, and natural born citizen does not include naturalized citizens.
I like this article but I know you have the 14th admendment wrong. The view that people have of it is the biggest National Security risk I could ever think. I have a son that is half Canada and half US .Only a parent can pass on citizenship not where a child is born. An illegal who has a child here doews not allow for that child to a citizen because the jurisdiction that illegal is the country of origin which I can not figure out why people who are such educated can not figure out for themselves.Which if my son waws born in US would not eligible because he would have a dual citizenship which takes away the possiblity for natural. Can not be both it is impossible
Hello Fred,
Too bad some of the Facebook answers don’t show. You mention that it is inconceivable the Supreme Court would hear this. Well, that is your opinion as none of us really know for sure. But, I have a few questions for you.
Do you think the mindset of the founding Fathers being concerned about English or French Anchor babies being raised by parents possibly loyal to another government is important?
What was the argument in the regards of the 14th ammendment. Wasn’t it about a specific class of people not having citizenship?
Please answer? Thank you
To suggest that “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution followed English common law, i.e., “natural born subject” is nonsensical and ludicrous.
The preeminent treatise on Natural Law by Emmerich de Vattel was THE textbook for those who studied law at the College of William and Mary, which was attended by many of the founding fathers. In ordering more copies, Franklin makes mention of his copy being passed around the Continental Congress, George Washington kept a copy for reference while serving as President.
Consider this sequence of events in history:
June 18th, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton drafts Constitutional requirement as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol II (page 407) Edited by John C. Hamilton.
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) – John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (President of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” (the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth).
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) – The “natural born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts of the Constitution. (Madison’s notes of the Convention)
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Had there not been a concern for security and undivided allegiance to there would never have been a need to change Hamilton’s original draft. If the intention of the founders was as you say, this change from “born a citizen” to “natural born Citizen” would never have occurred.
It is important to realize that the words “Natural Born Citizen” did not appear in any translation of Vattel until ten years after the US Constitution went into effect.
Sure, SOME of the framers spoke French, and some had read Vattel.
But when John Jay wrote to Washington about the importance of the commander in chief being an NBC, Jay did not know whether Washington spoke French (he probably didn’t) and he did not know that Washington had read Vattel.
Washington may have read Vattel by they, but Jay could not have known it. (We know that Washington took Vattel’s book out of the New York Society Library, but that was when Washington was president, AFTER the Constitutional Convention).
Unless Washington had read Vattel when Jay wrote to him and could read French, Washington did not have a chance of thinking that Vattel’s word “indignes”—which was the only word used in any translation of Vattel until TEN YEARS after the constitution, could have meant “Natural Born Citizen.” And Jay would have known that.
So when Jay used the phrase Natural Born Citizen, was he referring to Vattel?
Of course not. He was referring to the common use of the term NATURAL BORN, which as a lawyer he was familiar with from the common law. And in the common law it referred to the place of birth.
Unless Jay had said “I mean the Vattel meaning” or “I mean with two citizen parents”–what he was referring to was the simple meaning that was common at the time, the common law meaning, the one that refers to the place of birth and not to the parents.
Dear Fred,
Two points:
1. What did the Founders mean by natural born?
2. Who cares right now about Rubio? What about Obama?
Keep up your good work.
Phil
I like Mark but like obama he is unqualified to be President. I have always liked you also Fred, and supported your campaign 4 years ago. I do, however, resent your dismissive attitude toward those who voice legitimate concerns about elegibility. Just becuase you say “let me be clear” does not make it so. That is the attitude of the establishment and beneath you. Can it be you have allowed yourself to be coopted?
Shame on you!
If our current President, an Arab-African without authentic proof of being born in the USA, is allowed to live in the White House I don’t see any problem with Rubio. He would be a welcome change.
True. But, two violations of the US Constitution don’t make a right. IMO, it can be argued that one of the reasons Obama has been ineffective as President and seems not to give a flip about living by the US Constitution is because he is not natural born. There is a reason our founding fathers specifically wrote a president must be natural born in the Constitution. True, comrade Little George and many members of Congress are natural born and make vicious war on the Constitution. But if we are going to have treason, I would prefer it to be by a natural born.
NO….Jackie, NO Man, NOT natural born should be allowed to hold the office of Pres/V.P. In fact, I believe, NO man should be allowed to hold any office of senate, Gov/Mayor/Cogreeman etc UNLESS there are Natural Born and have 2 parents also born in the U.S.A. We Need people who are American born to understand who we are and to be one of us, NOT an African-foreign born: who ‘s allegiance is the country of ones birth! Obama NEEDS to GO, he was NOT born in this country and cares NOTHING about us or who we are!! IMPEACH HIM NOW!!
Am I to understand from your comment Jackie that you are saying “Two wrongs make a right”? If it is Constitutionally wrong for one to do it than it is just as Constitutionally wrong for the other. Let’s not lower ourselves to that of the violators. Let’s be absolutely certain regarding Rubio’s qualifications before throwing him in the ring.
So we let one get by that
Jackie, your comment is a prime example of what’s wrong in this country right now: situational ethics. While I personally think Marco Rubio would be an excellent choice for Romney, and would provide genuine conservitave credibility that Romney sorely lacks, the fact of the matter is that Rubio is constitutionally ineligible for the office of Vice-President. Neither of his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of birth (regardless of the fact he was born in the US and attained “birth-right citizenship”. And for those of you who would point out that the Natural Born Citizen requirement only addresses the eligibility for the office of President (I’ve seen that argument made), I would point out that the XII Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804) settled that oversight by adding “…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
But the meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law, and it really does refer to the place of birth, not to the parents.
False. Natural-born subjects under English common law could be born anywhere. Are you now saying that people born overseas are eligible to be POTUS? If so, why? Because their parents are citizens? Interesting…lol.
Re Natural born subjects could be born “anywhere.”
That is not what Blackstone said:
He said:
“The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/”
That is not what Lord Coke held in his summary of Calvin’s case, which said: “a person’s status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king’s dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king’s protection.”
That is not what Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said. He said:
“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”
There is not enough paper on Earth to list the violations of the US Constitution that get by. Great American Sheriff Arpaio has tried and the DOJ fights Photocopy’s battles with every lawsuit against him they can think. We live in a bought off or smeared by banksters’ owned USA, the reason our reps and courts do zero, zip nada, IMO.
Here’s the PDF link:
“The Whole TRUTH and Nothing but the TRUTH Concerning Natural Born Citizen”
http://api.ning.com/files/0cm0HDeFMgVrcHu6unova-EXGTadsKe60VYXF7ecq9IlRRzhMG5vZLlhkAS2Lf7nXvqHFwM6Zctrs9k1Atvic6MguIqbC6yy/TheWholeTruthandNothingbuttheTruthonNaturalBornCitizen.pdf
Jackie……..I agree with what you say about Rubio being a welcome change, but unfortunately, he is not eligible under our Constitution. Neither is the current usurper residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all the stink that has been raised about obama, and then the Republicans nominate a guy who is not eligible…….Good Grief!! The stupid democraps would never let you live that one down!!! The MSM would be relentless in their reporting…..every other sentence they wrote would be about ‘hypocrite Republicans!!’.
Jackie:
The “problem” is that not being a “natural born Citizen” for either of the top two positions in our political system makes one a criminal if he purposesly hides or disguises the fact. It’s not just a “little white lie” but has massive legal and ethical implications. Felonies are felonies, you see.
Utter nonsense. BHO has all the documentation anyone ever had, and has produced more proof of who he is than any other President, ever.
Disagree with him all you like on policy; the fact remains that he is a loyal American, a good father, and a decent man. John McCain said so. Is he part of the “conspiracy” too?
Yes
He has produced PROOF?! Wow, that is sure news. You should provide that to the country and be famous.
He provided an internet image that is worthless as proof of anything. His publicist stated for 17 years that he was born in Kenya. He has had dozens of chances to produce an actual certified copy of the BC in court, but instead argues that he either isn’t the candidate yet or that the state law in question doesn’t require him to be eligible.
I suggest more research.
Obama was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate from that state and the repeated confirmation of the facts on it by the officials of both parties in Hawaii, and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the newspapers Health Bureau Statistics sections by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 all prove. The claims by birther “experts” are claims by people who have not proven that they are even experts, and they certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial.
Many real experts say that the birth certificate image was NOT forged. For example: Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” This is why the Conservative secretary of state of Arizona has accepted the latest confirmation from Hawaii and ruled that Obama’s name will be on the ballot in November.
I THINK ALLEN WEST WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER VP THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS.
I like a lot of what you say, Fred, but on this issue, you really need to educate yourself before spouting all the common lies about this issue. Please read the AMICUS brief available at this web site: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/amicus-brief-georgia-potus-eligibility-cases/
Whether the Supreme Court will judge rightly or not is irrelevant, since there is already precedent that for an individual to be President of the United States, not just one, but BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens, and the individual must be born on U.S. soil. That precedent is the law of the land. The fact that the current POTUS is also not eligible just shows how much of a mess we are in. If people who call themselves conservatives continue to ignore the constitution, what right do we have to call the liberals to follow it?
I was one of those to “Ask Fred” regarding Rubio’s eligibility, not with anger or being adamant, but simply because I would hate to see a man whom I believe would be an excellent running mate for Romney be disqualified to run. I am relieved that you feel his non-citizen parents will not be an issue. I hope you’re right…
No Fred. You are the one that is incorrect. Many of us realize it is inconvenient to the political establishment of both parties when citizens expect that The Constitution be followed and upheld (by the very persons sworn to uphold it) without exception. Those of us that are principled do not believe it is appropriate the way our elected officials pick and chose when they want to follow The Constitution or when they want to claim is unclear or ambiguous or will require The Supreme Ct. to enforce it.
If you studied The Constitution, the case law and the ample documents written at the time of the writing of The Constitution and the 14th Amendment you would know that yours is an article that is not based on fact. You like many Rep. and Dems simply count on the majority of us being unprincipled and uneducated. It is possible that the majority, educated by govt schools are so inclined or ill informed. However, there are many Americans who have done their research, are objective on the issue. We will not vote for any person that is not eligible under the law even to get a communist like Obama out of office. BTW have you not wondered why Romney, Rubio, Santorum and Obama as well as other refuse to provide docs to prove their eligibility under the law? It is very easy to prove up. I can pull my docs out of my safe and provide them in about 5 minutes. If the facts support ones position there is no need to continue to try and discredit citizens who simply respect our laws and The Constitution. Try doing you research.
Both Romney and Obama have shown their birth certificates. Obama showed his twice—-the short form and the long form—-and the officials in Hawaii of both parties have repeatedly confirmed the facts on it, and it is further confirmed by the Index Data, and still further confirmed by the birth notices that the DOH (and only the DOH) sent to the Hawaii newspapers in a section of the papers entitled “Health Bureau Statistics.”
False. Obama has shown 2 internet images of his BC…one of which was manipulated. The HDOH has been proven to have fraudulently given out BC’s around the time when Obama was born. Therefore they can verify the information on file but can’t legally verify that it is true and accurate. Obama’s birth was registered in HI. The question is…did it really happen there? We will probably never know since the HDOH won’t allow anyone to examine the original documents.
Actually, Obama has shown both Internet images (how else to show his birth certificate widely?) and the actual physical copies—with the seal on the back–to the press. In contrast, Romney has shown only an Internet image of a photostatic copy of his short form birth certificate, without even showing the name of the hospital. The FACTS on Obama’s birth certificate were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. Their latest confirmation was accepted as evidence by the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona, who ruled that Obama’s name will be placed on the ballot, and he has stuck to this decision even after the press conference of Sheriff Joe.
Only birther sites have claimed that the birth certificate image was manipulated. And, when WND commissioned a real expert to determine whether Obama’s birth certificate was forged or not, the expert said that in his opinion it wasn’t—and WND simply did not run it. The “experts” whom birther sites quote have not shown that they are real experts (and the court in Georgia said that it simply did not believe them) or that they are fair and impartial. That is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, John McCain and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY.
According to Mr. Thompson’s conclusion a child born in America of an Ambassador is a NBC and could someday become President. Probably even if he returned with his parents to their country of origin.
It may be that my advancing years has affected my mind but I am having a difficult time in understanding Mr. Thompson’s logic.
I agree with David. We already have seen how much damage Obama has caused and he is the son of a foreigner, never was a citizen. Do we want to risk that happening again? I like these candidates that Fred mentioned but I don’t think I want to see us set a precedent. A natural born citizen is one born on American soil (or a military base) and both parents are American citizens at the time of the birth.
Do some research David. The writers of the 14th amendment were buttressing the language used in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power. According to the author of the amendment it excluded “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
GMiller is also wrong in his assertion that Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant since the court found that a child born to foreign parents living and working in the US but not at the behest of a foreign government was granted citizenship. If Rubio’s parents lived and worked in the US at the time of his birth, I’d say WKA is near perfect legal precedent.
WKA is legal precedent of the fact that Rubio is a ‘citizen of the United States from birth’, not that he is a ‘Natural born citizen’ as defined by A2S1.
I’m having a problem with it as well. For one thing, just because the SCOTUS makes a decision doesn’t mean that it’s the right one. The UNDERSTOOD and common sense (binding with common law) is that the best intrest of America is at the heart of the matter. You do NOT want someone of divided or potentially divided loyalty to be president of the U.S. That is the end of the matter. Nothing else needs to be considered including the whinings of the liberals or the candidates/office holders themselves. What part of this is “rocket science”? Though I dearely love Mr. Thompson, he misses the mark on the rest of the common law which bases heritage on the father’s nationality and not the soil on which a baby is born. It is obvious that Mr. Soetoro (his real name by adoption) is NOT a natural born citizen and even if he was he lost that during the adoption process by his step father. Why can’t our politicians “connect the dots” here? Again, this isn’t rocket science. Obama is a fraud and Congress is his biggest enabler and they are not our allies.
So you wouldn’t want Mitt Romney, because he might have divided loyalties (Mexico and the Mormons), you don’t want Marco Rubio (divided loyalties: Cuba and the Latino Community), or Bobby Jindal (obviously he would put America’s interests second to India’s), or. . .
The point is, there’s no way to ascertain “divided loyalties” objectively. Anyone can baselessly assert anything; that’s what Birtherism consists of. Have you looked at the image of what was purported to be Romney’s birth certificate? It’s partially illegible, missing vital information, has no authorizing raised seal or signature, and says “void” all over it. So Romney has not, to anyone’s satisfaction, actually proven he is a natural born citizen. At all. In any way.
Personally, I think we should file candidacy court challenges in all 50 states to have Romney’s name taken off the ballot ntil he proves he’s a NBC. To my satisfaction. I want to see hospital records, social security number records, school records, medical records, the works. Apparently that’s how things are done nowadays.
You DO have some input into deciding if a candidate might have divided loyalties, though: it’s called a voting booth. You get one vote. And if the other guy wins, it isn’t corruption, it isn’t voter fraud, it isn’t mind-control, it isn’t evil people wanting an evil government, it isn’t dictatorship, it isn’t Nazi Germany, it isn’t a Constitutional Crisis, it isn’t time to talk about watering the tree of Liberty, or to march on Washington in armed convoys.
It’s time to work harder for your party or your candidate next time around.
It’s America. Democracy. That’s how we do things.
The founders sought to exclude those with divided loyalties, yet you try to make it seem as though we ‘birthers’ (an insult btw) are the ones creating this from whole cloth.
Obviously you can’t cover every base in terms of making sure nobody has divided loyalties, but the Framers used the measure of being born here to citizen parents (ie. NOT a dual citizen).
I agree that ALL candidates should have to prove they are eligible. I know that sounds crazy..lol. How do we live in a time when asking for proof of eligibility for the office you seek is radical? It is beyond ridiculous.
For Romney, it is easier because it is common knowledge where he was born and who his parents were. Also, he didn’t have a publisher claiming he was born in Canada for 17 years. The Canadian government doesn’t claim he was born there. His family isn’t confused on which hospital he was born in. The list goes on and on.
Bottom line though, I have no problem requiring him to prove it as well.
A child born to a foreign official on American soil is not a US Citizen. The Embassy is foreign soil and its officials are not subject to US Law.
A child born to a US Official in a foreign country, is a natural born US Citizen.
Ambassadors are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States
Not so. Children of ambassadors are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. If they wish to become citizens they must be Naturalized, and hence would be ineligible for the Presidency.
Virtually every commenter here criticizing Fred is hopelessly fact-challenged. It makes you look like fools when you criticize people who actually know things.
If the facts were on your side you wouldn’t need to result to name calling. But que sera, sera.
> According to Mr. Thompson’s conclusion a child born in America of an Ambassador is a NBC
No, he does not say that.
He refers to the 14th Amendment which requires “subject to the jurisdiction”. This excludes – and the framers were quite explicit about that – children of foreign diplomats, of invading armies (and of Indians not taxed, back in the day) from being NBC. Everyone else born in the US is born subject to its jurisdiction and therefore an NBC.
Sen. Thompson’s argument would not make the child of a foreign ambassador a natural born citizen of the United States. The specific citations of law that he gives all note the common law exception for ambassadors, invading armies and heads of state, as well as the “under the jurisdiction” qualification of the 14th Amendment.
The jurisdiction of the United States is absolute within its borders except when the United States cedes some aspect of its jurisdiction by law. Ambassadors and their families fall under this exception.
And yes, the child of an illegal immigrant born in the US is a natural born citizen. There are federal court cases (e.g. Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)) that say exactly that. An illegal immigrant is under the jurisdiction of the United States and of you don’t believe that, check out the ones in jail or that have been deported by the United States.
BTW: It can’t raise questions about anyone running for senate, because the requirements for senator are lower – citizenship only, not natural-born citizenship.
No rule was applied before the election of Andrew Jackson…as no President before him was born after the American Revolution
We have a fraud president in office now , whats the diff??
Above posters are correct… Learned definition of Natural Born Citizen as required for CIC and VP, surprisingly, in 6th grade civics, back in MD public schools, where Constitution and Colony’s patriotic history and precepts were taught…
The Law of Nations by de Vattel was used by John Jay who became the first Chief Justice of the US. Jay had the ‘natural-born citizen’ clause inserted in the Constitution via a letter he wrote to Washington. Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
Now let’s see what de Vattel said in his book: “The citizens are the members of a civil society; bound by this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or ‘natural-born citizens’, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
SCOTUS, so taken with this meaning, used the above when deciding The Venus, 12 US 8 Cranch in 1814 and also included this from the same book: “Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the conditions of their fathers and succeed to all their rights.”
So this is already decided Law.
Simply stated, CIC and VP must be natural-born citizens at birth, i.e., both parents must be US citizens either through birth or through the completed naturalization process, to be eligible.
Neither Rubio’s, nor Jindal’s parents had completed this naturalization process. [I understand that Rubio's biography on his website had mentioned when his parents had complete their naturalization, but it has since been removed.]
If you were taught this in school, then why has no one in the past 3 years been able to find a single Civics textbook that agrees with your position?
And why is there a list of textbooks as long as my arm that say otherwise, for example:
Civics for citizens
Stanley Ellwood Dimond, Elmer F. Pflieger – 1965
A natural-born citizen is one born in the United States or in one of its possessions. It is generally believed that a person born in a foreign country whose parents were American citizens could become President, but this issue…
I bet you were taught this in school too:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Well, do you realize that the idea that Natural Born Citizens require two citizen parents means that the writers of the US Constitution would have NOT though that the US-born children of foreign parents were equal to the US-born children of US parents. IF they had thought that, they surely would have told us.
Oh, and Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Also, Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it, or to make them leave the country. Well, we certainly did not adopt that, and there is no evidence that we adopted the Vattel definition of NBC either. To be sure, the writers of the Constitution did real Vattel. But they also read a lot of other things. In particular, they read BLACKSTONE, and he defined Natural Born as birth in the country.
So why did the Wong Kim Ark case even happen then? Because the government didn’t consider him to even be a citizen, let alone NBC, despite his being born in the US and despite the 14th having already been passed. So to suggest that the Founders, long before the 14th, intended this term to mean simply born here…is highly illogical.
I did not say that the framers were talking about citizenship. They were talking about equality. There is no evidence that they believed that a US-born child of foreign parents was not equal in every way to the US-born child of US parents.
MaryJane Tyler’s post a pleasure to read and gives me hope a few people understand what natural born means. My US History teacher spent three months going through the US Constitution word for word. Pretty sure this is when I learned a natural born citizen is one with both parents US citizens. Guess I could insult those who post and seem not to get it. The US Constitution, IMO, made the USA the greatest country on Earth. Never in my 66 years have I ever heard the discontent with the USA as I hear now. My explanation for the sorry state of things, the people do not understand the US Constitution and our representatives and Supreme Court does not obey the US Constitution. Even tough many here don’t seem to understand the US Constitution, there are some here who do and are doing a good job of explaining it.
Fred Thompson may or may not be correct on the NBC question. From all I have read I believe he is likely wrong and it does require two parents to be citizens at the time of birth. However, since this whole issue has become a black hole since the fraud was elected president and the entire establishment of political, legal, media etc has chosen to ignore the question, I don’t believe is should now be used against those who would unseat the document, identity fraud, gun running criminal in the White House. And I have to give Fred credit for taking on an issues that at been almost universally untouchable (other that to ridicule) by the MSM.
If this is what your reading tells you, then I respectfully submit that you are reading very bad sources. Generally people who lose lawsuits are not making the best argument.
Put the cranks aside and read people who are qualified. Perhaps you might start the Congressional Research Service report that Sen. Thompson mentioned in his article:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement
And there is also:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
And:
http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/24/english-common-law-and-american-law-a-digression/
And:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/
And:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/early-use-of-the-term-natural-born-citizen/
And, for those who think that this is only recent conclusions and hence revisionist, there is this from 1829:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Dr. C. Do you consider Professor Rice of Notre Dame a crank. How about Harvard alumn Herb Titus? Both are MUCH more qualified than yourself and agree with out position. I agree there is a debate over this term. Your side pretends there is none. That is a VERY telling difference.
Do you consider the Chicago Law Review a crank source. How about the Boston Globe?
They are entitled to their opinions, but so is Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s attorney general:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
And, I do not know what the Boston Globe wrote (I doubt it was what you claim), but this is what the Wall Street Journal said:
“Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning
This was a concern of mine but you seem to have answered it. If Rubio could not be president than it seemed to me then neither could Obama, one of whose parents was an alien and the other who was a minor. Actually I like Col. West but the Progressives are pouring all kinds of money to defeat him. If he doesn’t survive the onslaught of Democratic money, I hope Romney will be smart enough to pick him up for something. Putting Ron Paul in charge of the FED and Sarah Palin in charge of energy would be poetic justice, but a wise move, nonetheless. Since things are in far worse shape than most know, believer’s need to really pray for all the elections in three months.
i really like your nomonies, but, romney is only going to put establishment in place to put the tea party in place. as he has tried to do this entire process. he does not like us and this is the establishments last stand too! we have to surround him with constitutionalist. GO TEA PARTY!
Mr Thompson; in this instance you are mistaken. The Constitutional authors specifically differentiated between a citizen and a natural born citizen; the latter must not only be born on our soil but the child of 2 citizen parents, naturalized or by birth, at the time of his/her birth; the 14th Amendment refers ONLY to the children of former slaves, and ceased being functional somewhere near the close of the 19th century. Read what its author wrote about it also, please. Further, there is a SCOTUS case already near the turn of the last century which upholds the Founders’ contention that the parents of a “natural born” citizen must both be citizens. I have nothing against Rubio, other than his amnesty policies, and I like both Jindal and Haley as well, but none is eligible, because their parents, while here legally, were not all citizens at the times of their births, And I’m sure you know 2 wrongs DON’T make a right, so just because the Dems did that with Obama, and lied in the doing, doesn’t make it right for Romney to compound the wrong!
No, the Constitution distinguishes between a natural born and a naturalized citizen. Natural born citizens are born citizens, and naturalized citizens becomes citizens later. The courts have been very clear on this distinction:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.”
– US Supreme Court – Schneider v. Rusk, 1964
“The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion…”
– US Supreme Court – Baumgartner v United States (1944)
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
– US Supreme Court – Elk v Wilkins (1884)
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
–US Supreme Court – Minor v. Happersett (1874)
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘ natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.”
That quote doesn’t say that all native-born citizens are natural born…you simply assume that.
“The naturalized citizen has as much right as the natural born citizen to exercise the cherished freedoms of speech, press and religion…”
That doesn’t even address the issue. ALL citizens have the same rights. Running for POTUS is a privilege, not a right.
“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘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;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.”
Again, this doesn’t say that ALL citizens from birth are natural born…assumption.
The Minor quote is the same. And, as you know, the Minor Court defines A2S1 NBC differently than you do.
You are WRONG ! The Constitution and Founders were very clear on who could run for President or VP and would call revisionists like you Traitors. BOTH have to qualify for the same requirements as the VP could be President at a moments notice.
The REAL Law (and it’s not from the US Supreme Court that Jefferson warned to NOT allow to have the final word on things and this Supreme Court has nullified itself several times so they are not relevant anymore as far the TRUE Americans are concerned) BOTH parents of a candidate MUST BE AMERICAN BORN CITIZENS THEMSELVES. The Court cannot change what the Founders established and if they do, it’s Treason ! They have committed Treason many times , so they are irrelevant.
Rubio nor Romney are eligible for high office ! The only man running who IS eligible by CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDERS LAW is Ron Paul and he is who I will vote for. – All TRUE freedom lovers and Constitutionalists will !
It’s a simple choice – vote for the ONLY man who stands for freedom, – or OWG Communists, which the other two are !.
No one does their own homework anymore !
And Communism has been such a part of life for us the past 150 years that we are born to it and cannot recognize it anymore ! This NEW tyrannical so-called DC govt system began with Lincoln in his 1861 coup, who also placed the first Communists (48er’s) in high office and military where they have grown in numbers since. That is TRUE history that the American public has not been allowed to know about – that is why the DC “Govt” (not really a ‘govt’ but only a corporation posing as a govt) runs all schools and education. ANY nation that has govt run schools IS A DICTATORSHIP !
Rubio nor Romney is Constitutionally eligible ! Romney’s father was born in Mexico – not born an America citizen no matter how they try to twist it seem so.
The revisionists are killing this country and why we are such a mess today !
TRUE American stick to the Founders law, not the stuff DC has put out. DC has no Constitutional permission or power over any sate or their affairs ! It’s Treason if they do ! But of course DC has thrived on Treason since 1861 and made the public accept it as ‘normal’. Today the public has no idea what Treason is ! They speak Treason daily and have no idea they are doing so. Just as the OWG gang planned it ! The public has become the perfect programmed robots the OWG Elite gang planned.
I totally agree with you, but unfortunately they have set a precedent by allowing Obama to be president on completely false information. He is not and never was eligible, but if he can be president anyone can, no matter where they are born. The existence of Obama destroys the constitution.
Barack Obama didn’t set a precedent. Chester A. Arthur, son of an Irish citizen, set the precedent.
Actually, I have seen that there is no evidence whatsoever that James Buchanan’s father was naturalized before his birth or, for that matter, ever. And it is a stretch to say that Woodrow Wilson’s and Herbert Hoover’s mothers were citizens. Sure, they were legally, but they weren’t actually naturalized, in which you swear an oath and renounce foreign allegiance. They simply became US citizens automatically when they married US men. In any case, Buchanan.
You are wrong on all of those. Legally is the only way to determine citizenship. Derivative citizenship through marriage makes you a citizen. Arthur was the 1st to be POTUS not meeting the standard, and it wasn’t known until recently. Arthur knew he wasn’t eligible though…that was made clear by his statements while in office.
It is interesting to note that the Chief Justice of the WKA case was appointed by Arthur.
Arthur isn’t precedent because nobody knew his dad wasn’t a citizen when he was born. Deceit is not precedence. Arthur himself, while POTUS, said that we needed to create naturalization laws to account for those born here of non-citizens or of parents in the process of becoming citizens but not yet so. Notice that said naturalization. Arthur knew he wasn’t natural born.
At the time the controversy was that people thought he was born in Canada.
Re: “nobody knew.”
Actually, there is no evidence that “nobody knew.” NONE whatsoever. It was easy for modern researchers to find out that Arthur’s father was not a US citizen, and there is no indication that the researchers at the time could not have found it either. Nor is there any indication that Arthur even hid the fact.
In addition, there is NO evidence that James Buchanan’s father, who was born in Ireland, became a US citizen before Buchanan was born—or ever.
Andrew Jackson had two foreign parents. He was covered under the grandfather clause, so birthers say that he doesn’t count. But when you come down to it, one of our greatest presidents had two foreign parents, and wasn’t disloyal—far far far from it. So what is the evidence that the writers of the US Constitution wanted to bar people like Andrew Jackson from becoming president?
There would have to be actual words: “NBC status requires two (or for that matter one) citizen parent,” or “we follow Vattel on this”—but there is no such evidence. And the meaning of NBC really did come from the common law. (Vattel was not translated to include the words Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the Constitution). And examples of the use of the term at the time shows that it was used as in the common law. So there is no evidence that it was used any differently than in the common law, and that referred to the place of birth.
I’ve always wondered about this. If being born on American soil doesn’t make you a citizen, then how is ANYONE an American citizen? Obviously if you immigrated and became a citizen then you are ok. But what about all those people who came over before America was a country. Are they citizens because they were here when the Constitution was ratified? I have a relative that came over on the Mayflower….maybe my citizenship is suspect.
Any argument on this subject needs references to law and precedent. Little Bright Feather’s comments don’t fill the bill, while Fred’s seem to be accurate and cogent. I don’t like the arrangement that permits anyone born in the US to be a citizen, but not because I want to exclude political candidates. I don’t like the idea of a couple sneaking into the country long enough to have a child here, then insisting they must live here to look after their citizen child. In my opinion, that should be changed. But it would take a constitutional amendment to do it, I believe.
Little Bright Feather, there are many aspects of Ron Paul that this country needs, and on just that little bit…you and I agree. However, whether you like it or not, Ron Paul did NOT land enough votes to garner the GOP slot. This is the reality.
Another reality, if you insist on wasting your vote by voting only for Ron Paul, then you can pat yourself on the back when we are stuck with Obama for 4 more years.
We NEED every vote that we can get tallied for Romney, and we need this to help counter the potential vote-count fraud…by Soros’s company….in Spain!!
Just research it. Both of Mitt Romney’s parents were US citizens when he was born, thus Mitt Romney is natural born and eligible to be president. There is a lot of info on this on the net so I won’t regurgitate it.
Romney’s father was born in Mexico to American parents. They retained their American citizenship when they moved to Mexico.
Romney’s father and mother are American citizens making him natural born.
Oh goody, you are going to help get Obama re-elected. Please, every vote taken away from Romney is a vote for Obama. How intellectually stupid of you to hang on to your moral values in such an important election. Ron Paul doesn’t have a hope in h*ll of winning but you are going to vote for him anyway. Is he even running anyway? How disappointing, let’s see, he couldn’t make it as a Republican, so he has switchend back to being an independent? Have I got that right? Kind of dishonest of him isn’t it? He couldn’t win as an Independent, so he decided to become a Republican, he couldn’t win as a Republican so he is back to being Independent. What next? Like a child who picks up his marbles and stomps off home.
You are wrong on this one. It does not matter if Romney’s father was born in Mexico. At the time Mitt was born, both of his parents were U.S. Citizens. He therefore, is a “natural born” citizen.
The difference with Rubio is that at the time of his birth, his parents were not U.S. citizens. So, he is a naturalized citizen as he was born here in the U.S.
So there you have it, plain and simple to understand.
@K. Martin.
Are you sure about that? At the time George Romney was born in Galeana, Chihuahua, Mexico in 1907, his parents had been living in Mexico for over 25 years, having left US jurisdiction to avoid felony charges of polygamy.
At the time of George Romney’s birth both of his parents were at the very least ‘perpetual Inhabitants’ or ‘aliens in amity’ of Mexico. Under this citizenship classification, at birth George Romney would have been born a Mexican national and not dual a citizen between Mexico and the United States (Mexico and US had no dual citizenship provisions at that time).
Under Mexican statutes, being born a Mexican national does not automatically confer Mexican citizenship. At the age of 18, all born Mexican nationals would have to declare their intent to become Mexican citizens. In George Romney’s case, this was never done. When George Romney entered US jurisdiction for the first time as a five-year old boy, he was a Mexican national. Having never declared himself a Mexican citizen at age 18 and never being naturalized as a US citizen, he was at the time of Mitt Romney’s birth in Detroit, Michigan, a Mexican national and not a US citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Since there has been some allegation that posts have been disappearing from this forum, I have “Print/Screen” this post as well as my others.
And for what it’s worth, I am a staunch fiscal conservative Republican, as both JEB and Sen. Rubio, who know me personally, will confirm.
Hey David, what did that judge in Atlanta say about your theories?
No, Rubio is a natural born citizen. It does not matter that he was born to non-citizens.
How do I know? Everyone who is Naturalized has been through the Naturalization process, and has Naturalization papers. Does Bobby J.? No. He was born a citizen of the USA, and being a citizen at birth = NBC. Now THAT’s simple.
Consider: The very first Republican candidate for president, John C. Fremont, lacked 2 citizen parents. And Tom Vilsack was a candidate and is currently in the line of succession for the presidency. Nobody knows who his parents were; he was abandoned at birth in Philadelphia. The only relevant factor in his being accepted as an eligible NBC is the location of his birth.
Argue all you want, Mr. Thompson is correct on this topic.
i disagree with your statements. You are confusing “natural born” with naturalized.
Every person born here in the USA is a naturalized citizen. However, in order to be considered “natural born” both parents must be U.S. Citizens at the time of the childs birth. Read the wording in our Constitution for proof positive of what I am telling you. If you need more proof, research 138 years of American Supreme Court History,and their decision in the case of Minor v. Happersett.
Who told you that? It is wrong. (And the Minor vs Happersett decision did not say what you think.) If I told you that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt that would hold your pants up, would that mean that you have to wear both suspenders and a belt? Well, look at the Minor vs Happersett quotation, that is all that it says. It says that if someone has both of the two possible ways of being an NBC, then one of course is. But that does not say that both are required.
And in any case the Wong Kim Ark decision was after the Minor vs Happersett decision, AFTER it, and it says that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803) (But, sadly, someone on this site has accused the Heritage Foundation of lying–which is a silly claim.)
So, according to you: Obama is not eligible since his father was not a US Citizen.
The Founders said nothing about qualifications for candidates. They set forth the requirements for president, senator and representatives, not candidates. That vice presidents must meet the same standards as president was added as part of the 12th Amendment.
You are mistaken about Romney. His father was born in Mexico of two US citizen parents and therefore he is a US citizen (not NBC) but Mitt was born in the US of two US citizen parents and is therefore an NBC.
Rubio is not eligible under the 12th amendment. Read the last line. If Rubio is selected it will verify that Obama is eligible and the Constitution is meaningless. True birthers say that anyone born on US soil is a natural born American. If that were the case Anwar al-Alwaki, who was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, could run for president even though both his parents were Lebanese and he hasn’t lived in the US since he was 7 years old.
He would be eligible by birth in the US, but there is also a 14 year residency requirement. Being natural born does not make one a good citizen. The Constitution says nothing about felons being ineligible. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc., were also NBCs. That doesn’t mean they are fit to be president, or should be president. That is why there are elections.
Sorry, Fred. He’s not eligible. Neither is the guy in office now.
This is a very serious issue, and the Constitutionality of it is of great importance. In the future, long after Obama is out of office, the truth will be known. It’s tragic that this obvious fraud has been perpetrated on the American people. The Congressional Research Service has been known to make findings friendly to politicians in the past. This is no different. The wording in Minor v. Happersett says clearly ““The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.“
It was never doubted…. and as to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. That’s really pretty clear even for the Supreme Court.
NBC it was never doubted all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens….. Get it?
I find it appalling that Congress and the bureaucrats and judiciary in this country have so betrayed us all.
The “it was never doubted” does not say that two citizen parents are required. What it does is list the two possible ways that one can be a Natural Born Citizen, parents and place of birth. These are the two POSSIBLE ways. The Europeans consider that the children of their citizens are Natural Born. The common law says that the children born in the country are Natural Born.
IF you have both, then for sure you are natural born.
But do you have to have both? Is that kind of certainty required?
Consider this analogy: It was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt you would hold your pants up. Does that say that wearing both is required? Does it even say that wearing both is necessary? No it doesn’t.
And the Minor vs Happersett quotation does not say it either.
And besides, it was FOLLOWED by the Wong Kim Ark decision, which clearly stated that the meaning of Natural Born was from the common law and referred to the place of birth.
And the Minor vs Happersett decision itself never said that two citizen parents were required or having both citizen parents and birth in the USA was required. It merely said that if you had both, you were for sure a Natural Born Citizen.
Hey Fred,in your thinking if he hadn’t been killed then Anwar al-Awlaki would be elgible as a US CITIZEN !!!!! How would that grad ya? i think you should read Minor v Happersatt to get a little better grasp of the law.
Anwar al-Awlaki would be eligible, as would about 300 million other people born in the USA.
Big deal. Criminals are eligible. It is an arbitrary rule. If you are born in the USA, good guy, criminal, Baptist, atheist, smart man, dumb man, Anwar al-Awlaki—you are eligible. What protects us against a criminal or Anwar al-Awlaki becoming president? NOTHING but us, we the voters. We do not have to vote for a criminal or Anwar al-Awlaki, and I presume that we wouldn’t. And think it is highly likely that the writers of the US Constitution presumed that we wouldn’t ALSO. And that is why they didn’t have to say it. They trusted us to make the right decision, or—if not—-that we should shoulder the consequences.
In any case, the arbitrary rule is based on the definition of Natural Born that the writers of the US Constitution were familiar with, the common law, and that say that every child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born, and will be at the age 35 eligible for the job.
Several previous nominees had foreign parents: http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/blog/2012/04/marco-rubio-charles-evans-hughes.html
All that proves is that political parties care more about their chances than the Constitution.
I will NEVER vote for the sons or daughters of foreign nationals for the officce of president. I intend to be constantly on the phone urging other Americans to do the same. We all should get a write-in candidate and cast our vote for someone qualified to hold the office. Far too many care nothing about our constitution or the laws of the land.
Including yourself apparently. You can vote against anyone for whatever reason you like. But you may want to temper your exasperation at other people not understanding until you actually do. Maybe a smidgen of humility?
[...] Rubio eligible ? Is Rubio Eligible?*|*Fred Thompson's America If Obama is legal everybody is legal. Reply With [...]
Should Anwar al-Awlaki have been eligible to run for President?
http://www.art2superpac.com/blog/?viewDetailed=00011
excerpt:
Those who suggest that there is no distinction between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” would have us believe and accept that such a person might have been eligible to run for President of the US simply because he was born in America. According to defenders of the alleged eligibility of Barack Obama (or Marco Rubio, or Bobby Jindal), any person born on US soil to one or more alien citizens could be the leader of the free world. At some point, according to that path of logic, this should have included Anwar al-Awlaki.
“An American Son” might be worth reading Fred… And as far as I’m concerned he doesn’t belong on radio at all. He talks too slow and doesn’t say much of anything worth hearing!!!
Fred, you are avoiding the intent of the Constitution. If the author had meant anyone who was a “citizen” was eligible it would not have been necessary to add “or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” This was done because the country was young and many were born here of immigrant parents at the time of the signing of the Constitution. The pool would have been shallow and the founders did not want to limit the prospects, most of which were patriots and fought for independence. After that generation was gone only a person born here of citizen parents, a NBC, is eligible. I had great respect for you in the past and I am puzzled as to why you would ignore the obvious. It takes intention distortion of logic to believe that the only criteria for eligibility is to be born in the US.
The distinction between citizens and Natural Born citizens is simply that the category citizens includes naturalized people, and the Natural Born Citizen category does not included naturalized people.
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
My original question to Fred Thompson was, There are many conservative Republicans having grave concerns over Mitt Romney’s liberal views, up to the point that some may even sit home on election day. What affect would it have on other conservative Republicans who viewed Barack Obama as not eligible for office because one of his parents was not a Natural Born American citizen and if Romney picked Rubio for his VP in spite of the fact neither of Rubio’s parents were born in the USA, I think many conservatives would feel that casting a vote for Romney/Rubio would be an insult to what they believe in. Sort of like being forced to eat crow.
To me it is not a matter of law but a matter of the US Constitution and what the federalists papers say on this subject in the meaning in the US Constitution. I for one don’t trust Rubio because if my memory serves me right, Rubio is for amnesty for illegals instead of punishing anyone who gives them a job and punishment for those that use fake identification to get a job. Unless you come in the front door, as far as I’m concerned, you are a thief and a law breaker.
It’s far past time for the supreme court to act and declare a decision on the natural-born citizen issue. It is a HUGE ISSUE and needs to be settled. Eight (8) attempts have been made in the past to change Article2 Section1 and have failed and now (Nancy Pelosi) has made the decision for the court by stealth if Obama is allowed a full term; setting precedent in law without the court.
Seems that tampering with official documents and removing whole paragraphs of historically accepted electoral forms to elect to the highest position in the land by changing perhaps the most important article in the constitution by merely removing the wording is an illegal act in itself. Now that law means nothing and anybody on the planet can rule the free world by hook or by crook! Thank you Nancy Pelosi!
Fred, since you are concerned about Rubio and Jindal and Cruz maybe it is time to be concerned about a man who is sitting next to the “nuclear football” who has been flaunting an April 27th, 2011 computer generated forged birth certificate, prove to be so by many career document experts and examined by life long law enforcement officers. This guy sitting next to the “nuclear football” has more than likely fraudulently registered with the Selective Service. That is actually more easily determined to be fraudulent in that Obama’s year of registration stamp is the ONLY TWO digit ever used by the Selective Service (Post Office). The “08″ part of a stamp was reversed to read “80.” Very poor forgery. This guy sitting next to the nuclear football is also using a fraudulent SS# that has been flagged by E-Verify several times as a warning not to hire the guy let alone let him sit next to the “nuclear football.” Susan Daniels has an active law suit going on in Ohio over this fraudulent SS# in her attempt to keep Obama off the Ohio ballot for 2012. This fraudulent activity should be of concern to you Mr. Thompson.
People like Diana West, Lord Charles Monckton and Frank Gaffney have taken the time to examine all of the evidence pointing to fraudulent activity and they believe this will develop into the biggest scandal of the century or perhaps in our history. Lord Charles Monckton wrote up a 20 page summary and delivered it to the Brits warning them of what may happen soon because of this scandal.
Mr. Thompson, you sir, need to take a very close look at all the evidence and I am certain that you will be convinced that Barack Hussein Obama needs to be investigated. Allowing him on the ballot for another attempt to continue with this usurpation is NUTS.
Personally, I hope Senator Rubio is not selected to be Mitt Romney’s VP. He has been a great, conservative Senator for the State of Florida. Why should I wish the VP slot for this great Senator who supports Florida’s position, as opposed to our semi-commie democrat who is the federal governments representative to Florida? Give me a break.
Fred I’ve always supported you in politics but your explanation of why Rubio, Jindall, etc. would be qualified to be President shows me why the Republican establishment has refused to look at Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate. You just revealed the republican hand. I’ve been a republican since the days of Reagan but it’s time to go independent, I no longer blindly trust republicans and never did trust democrats.
i agree Ralph. A true American would have respect for our laws.
Why worry about Rubio’s legitimacy to be VP when therre are already so many worries about Obama’s legitimacy to be president? Another faked birthe certificate?
GMiller and SFC Graig Yarbrough are absolutely right and Mr. Thompson I highly recommend that you do more research on the topic. Bret Baier of Fox News made the very same mistake you have made. You guys must be taking your talking points from someone else. Both of your responses to the Rubio and Jindal eligibility issue were identical and both were wrong.
Sorry Fred but the constitutional requirements are more important than an election! Suppose in 2016 a very wealthy Saudi Arabian prince wishes to run for the office of the President of the United States of America, would that make you think about why our Founders distinguished between “natural born citizenship” for Presidents and “citizenship” for U.S. Senators and House of Representative members? If there is no difference between the citizenship for Presidents, Senators and House Representatives why was the difference written into our Constitution? And, there was a difference between citizens of Britain and the United States. Individuals in the United States are “citizens” while Individuals in Britain were “subjects” of the King. No individualism existed in Britain, but that was the foundation for our Founders as they drafted our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights of Individuals.
The answer is in whether anchor-babies are natural-born citizens or not. Rubio would have been considered an anchor-baby when he was born because neither parent was a citizen at the time of his birth. If they are considered natural-born citizens, then there is no question of his eligibility. If both parents have to be citizens at the time of birth, then Obama isn’t eligible either because his father was never a citizen.
Obama has had three very important document challenged as being fraudulent with very good evidence to back up those allegations. The three documents are his birth certificate, his selective service registration and his SS#, all three pointing in ONE direction, he may have usurped the office of the POTUS. Obama is as ineligible as Rubio and Jindal.
If Romney chooses either Jindal or Rubio his campaign will be tied up in the courts for the remainder of his campaign. There are attorneys waiting in the wings to challenge a Rubio and/or Jindal pick. One of those is Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and presently with Freedom Watch. He is now actively involved in attempting to keep Obama off the Florida ballot and is now just waiting for the Democrats to nominate him.
Senator Rubio was born in the United States by parents invited here when they were refugees from the Cuban debacle. He is as much a citizen as Barry Goldwater who was born in the Arizona Territory before it became a state and John McCain who was born in Panama (Canal Zone).
Actually the natural born citizen clause was added to the Constitution to protect the then new country from foreign influence. As it is now, we have little if any fear of foreign influence in or on our political arena. Sen. Rubio’s parents may or may not have been citizens when he was born, but it is clear they became citizens. I don’t believe that any court or judge in the land would say that Sen. Rubio is not eligible for the presidency. Moreover, he would make a fine president with far and away more political experience than the x-community organizer & part time senator who now occupies that office.
K.C. Have you KNOWN any politician who was any ggod at keepimg his promises? Raegan was a good president but even he didn’t keep all his promises!! Rubio will NOT be any beeter for this country thanObama, HE is a politician and is bought by soemone! His parents were NOT born in this country and therefore he is NOT legal to run etc,, and neither is Romney! I won’t vote for either “STOOGE” I’ll votr for a proven man….Ron Paul!! These Politicains got you blinded and deceived!!
It goes back to the citizenship of the parents, not where one is born. McCain is natural born because both his parents were US citizens when they had him. Rubio is not natural born because both his parents weren’t US citizens when Rubio born. Both of Barry Goldwater’s parents were US citizens when he as born, thus Barry Goldwater was natural born and eligible to be president. IMO, The US Supreme Count has been bought by Banksters, so yes, the Supremes would declare anyone natural born if the Banksters wanted him/her president. Because this country has been bought and paid for by banksters’ does mean its Constitutional. As a matter of fact, it a pretty good reason to assume its unConstitutional.
Rubios parents were not refugees at the time they came to the U.S. as Castro was at that time not restricting people from leaving the island. They chose to leave but were at that time not being persecuted so Rubio is not only lying about this, but he is Not a Natural Born Citizen as he was born in 1971 and his parents did not become citizens until 1977.
I beg your pardon..we have nothing to fear from foreign influences? So, if the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to elect a person to become our President you are good with that?
We have a tremendous amount to fear from Foreign Influences!! If we do not follow what our Founding Fathers put forth for our country, a set of Laws that have until now served us well, then we all may as well live lawless in a third world country. Please think before you speak..thank you!
So what? Everything you say might be true, but it is your opinion, not what the founders intended and what SCOTUS has ruled on this issue. The constitution should not be an evolutionary document. The founders did not intend it so and neither you, or Fred have made any argument to suggest that they thought NBC was somebody born of foreign parents without any natural connection to this country.
K. R. Pelfrey:
You need to do some serious study on the issue of “citizen” vs. “natural born Citizen” (as do many other Americans – you’re certainly not alone but that changes nothing).
You may presently be ignorant on the subject of “natural born Citizen” but ignorance is temporary and can be corrected by the study mentioned. Stupid, however, is quite different thing … STUPID is forever.
Even ex-Sen. Thompson needs to apply some of his study skills to the matter.
You’re kinda mistaken. Rubio’s parents came here before the Cuban Castro debacle, by several years. They had plenty of time to become citizens, they just chose not to until much later (waiting to see if Castro failed and they could go back there with big influence (playing both sides). Rubio has other problems, he is for blanket amnesty for illegals.
B Skinner – - -Yes, Fred is saying that anyone who was born in in this country can become president of the USA. regardless of where their parents were born. My stepdaughter was born in Scotland. Her dad (my husband) was stationed there in the US Air Force. Because he was stationed there his daughter is a citizen of the USA. She held dual citizenship until she was 21. However, because she did not choose to accept Scottish citizenship she is a citizen of this country only. Same thing happened to John McCain. His Dad was stationed in the Canal zone when he was born. Therefore John McCain was born a citizen of the USA. I am 100% positive of what I am saying.
I strongly suggest you read the wording in our constitution that deals with the eligibility to qualify for the office of President. I agree that Marco Rubio would make a fine V,P. and even, President, however, HE IS NOT ELIGIBLE under our present constitution. Until this wording is amended, his appointment for V.P. will be challenged, and rightfully so……
The wording says that Natural Born citizens are required, and that referred to the meaning of Natural Born in the common law, which is based on the place of birth, not the parents. So Rubio is eligible.
Are you kidding me?
We Republicans (as well as the MSM) love to place roadblocks in the way of our candidates — and yet forget the present occupant is unqualified. We want all of Romney’s tax returns but have no idea of Obama’s continuity of citizenship (if it ever existed) and fail to cite his non-American history and philosophy. I bet Romney would tell you what his college grades were.
Clearly the Founders inserted the Natural Born citizenship requirement to protect the nation against dual loyalites. This requirement is unique to the presidency, and rightly so. May I suggest that Fred (and everyone else) read fellow Tennessean and Consitutional Scholar Publius Huldah’s excellent analysis here:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm
I have spoken to Publius Huldah personally about this, and her position is quite clear. She makes the case with absolute certainty that not only is Rubio not eligible, but neither is Jindal, nor is the current occupant of the White House. Both birth parents MUST have been US citizens (yes, naturalized parents are OK) at the time of birth.
Remember, it’s ORIGINAL INTENT that matters.
RUBIO IS NOT ELEGIBLE.
He was not born a child of citizen parents, as required by the Constitution. The Constitution cannot be changed except by a constitutional amendment.
The phrase “natural born citizen” was introduced into the Constitution at the behest of John Jay, who became the first Chief Justice of the first Supreme Court. Jay derived the definition from Vattel, which was a primary source used by the members of the Constitutional Convention. A good source for historical precedent is provided by Publius Huldah. http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm
In 1875, the Supreme Court considered the Minor v. Happersett case. Mrs. Minor was noted to have been born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. The court stated in accord with “nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar” [e.g. Vattel] that such persons were “natural born citizens”. Then since Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen, she was also a citizen (an issue of the case). Whereupon it is declared a legal precedent that a sufficient condition for being a natural born citizen is to be born in the U.S. to citizen parents.
My own discussion confirming the definition of “natural born citizen” can be found in the following link. In discussing citizenship, one must be careful not to confuse “natural born citizenship” with “14th Amendment citizenship”. Natural born citizenship is based on parentage. 14th Amendment citizenship is based on place of birth.
http://wweethepeople.patriotactionnetwork.com/2011/09/08/natural-born-citizen-2/
Mr. Romney can provide at least one person who knew him in College and Law School. The street organizer cannot.
If you people don’t believe natural born citizen is birth on the soil, jus soli, and that the Supreme Court would rule otherwise…
In the oral arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (No. 99-2071), Justice Scalia made it clear that his view is that natural born citizenship, the requirement to be president, is based on jus soli (birth in the United States).
Here is the relevant section from the transcript:
Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?
They did not want that.
They wanted natural born Americans.
[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…
Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?
[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.
Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.
I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing.
It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
All Scalia said was that NBC required Jus Soli…which is true. He didn’t say it doesn’t ALSO require Jus Sanguinis.
If we posit the opposing view (like Little Bright Feather) for a second, then there would be very few NBCs today… If ALL your grandparents were immigrants, then your parents aren’t NBCs. And if your parents aren’t NBCs, you aren’t either. Follow this chain long enough and one could argue only pure blooded descendants of the original colonists are NBCs. Obviously absurd. So, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, the opposing view vanishes in a puff of logic.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “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.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President today.
The clear distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” is natural and therefore universal, for a civil society must start with original members (called “citizens” in a republic) who are the creators of that society. Their children, grandchildren, etc. (“Posterity”) then are the “natural-born citizens.” This is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in effect says. The creators of the new republic were “Citizens of the United States” and their “Posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution) were “natural born Citizens.” The Founders and Framers also allowed for new citizens through naturalization. Hence, any naturalized citizen under any Act of Congress becomes a “citizen of the United States,” just like the original “Citizens of the United States.” A reading of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it also only adds to the “citizens of the United States,” simply by persons being born (without requiring “citizen” parents) or naturalized in its jurisdiction. And the children (“Posterity”) born in the United States to those new first generation “citizens of the United States” then become “natural born Citizens,” just like the children of the descendents of the original “Citizens of the United States.”
Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” under the “common-law” with which the Framers were familiar. The definition it gave is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country at the time the child was born. Some argue that this definition is not dispositive, because the Court did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural-born citizen.” This argument is frivolous, for we need to understand what the Court intended by what it said, and not by what it did not say. If I want to define a dog, I include as many of a dog’s attributes, including that a dog by nature is an animal with warm blood. I do not also have to say at the same time that by nature a dog is not an animal with cold blood. There is no indication that this definition is not totally inclusive and exclusive. On the contrary, this has always been the definition of the clause. This definition has never changed.
It is more than clear that Minor had two types of “citizens” in mind, a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen,” and it cannot be otherwise. In the doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen” presented by Minor and to which you also concede, the parents are “citizens” and the children are “natural born citizens.”
So, there was no question for the Minor Court whether children born in the United States to alien parents were or were not “natural-born citizens.” Those children simply did not meet the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural-born citizen.” So, they were not “natural-born citizens.” The only question was whether those children now fell under the new Fourteenth Amendment which included as “citizens of the United States” children born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States. Minor did not need to answer that question, for Virginia Minor was a “natural-born citizen.”
Minor did not itself create this definition but only confirmed it. In fact, Emer de Vattel had already stated this same definition in 1758 as follows:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. ”
Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural-born citizen,” at the time of birth, the child had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents. See also The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (“The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”).
Minor added that “some authorities” go further. But the Court was referring to whether a child “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether that child is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After all, the Founders and Framers had only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” in mind and the Court stated that doubt-free definition. That definition came from the law of nations and was confirmed by our First Congress which passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Congresses which passed the acts of 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens), and also in 1814 by Founder, Chief Justice Marshall. When the Constitution was adopted, that one definition became the supreme law of the land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Minor would also not have referred to the Founders and Framers as “some authorities” and even add that “there have been doubts” about their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the “natural born Citizen” clause was not even debated during the Constitutional convention, so surely there were no doubts about its definition. On the contrary, the Court even said that there were no doubts about the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that it gave.
Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor and said that those children, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Wong Kim Ark twice demonstrated that those children are only “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” Wong Kim Ark recognized that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The first time he said: “The child of an alien, 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.’ Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney’s name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “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.’” Id. at 694. It is critical that when he mentioned it for the second time, his sentence followed the Court’s conclusion which he based on how the English common law held aliens in amity to have sufficient allegiance to the King to make his children born in the King’s dominion “natural born subjects,” that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So twice, Justice Gray told us of the distinction between a child born in the country to aliens and a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. He explained that both are “citizens,” but only the latter is a “natural-born citizen.”
So, Minor confirmed the original definition of a “natural born Citizen” used by the Founders and Framers. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who are “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. To date, that definition has not been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only defines a “citizen of the United States) or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (construing the Fourteenth Amendment, only defined a “citizen of the United States”). Any other U.S. “citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty. So, today, a “natural born Citizen” is still a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition continues to be the supreme law of the land until changed by constitutional amendment.
Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all not born to U.S. “citizen” parents (“natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth. Being born to just one U.S. “citizen” parent (Obama’s birth circumstance) is not sufficient because the child inherits through jus sanguinis from the one non-U.S. citizen parent a foreign allegiance and citizenship just as strong as if born to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence, Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are all not “natural born Citizens.” Rubio and Jindal, being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he too is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But what this means is that since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are neither Article II “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” they are not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military or Vice-President.
Every court that has ruled on that argument has said it is without merit. Mr. Thompson is right.
You have already been told in court that your argument is “without merit.”
Fred, I usually stand with you, but we part ways on this issue. Natural born citizen means born on American soil to American citizens, both parents. That is what the founding fathers meant. That we now have a pretender in the WH who is doing irreparable damage should be a lesson for us all to vet that birth issue carefully. Whether or not he was born in Hawaii (and I don’t believe he was) is immaterial. His father was never an American citizen and his mother relinquished hers in Indonesia. And if you do believe he was born in Hawaii, she also relinquished his as he was a citizen of Indonesia or he could not have attended the school he was enrolled in. So, he is not eligible no matter how you try to tilt the game. And that is what politics is. It is another game lawyers play.
-Yes, Fred is saying that anyone who was born in in this country can become president of the USA. regardless of where their parents were born. My stepdaughter was born in Scotland. Her dad (my husband) was stationed there in the US Air Force. Because he was stationed there his daughter is a citizen of the USA. She held dual citizenship until she was 21. However, because she did not choose to accept Scottish citizenship she is a citizen of this country only. Same thing happened to John McCain. His Dad was stationed in the Canal zone when he was born. Therefore John McCain was born a citizen of the USA. I am 100% positive of what I am saying
Fred, if a totally “unexperience born Kenyan” can reach the White House with the financial support of George Soros and his socialist minions, why can an American Born Citizen – with a Valid U.S. Birth Certificate to prove it, and great Economic and solicist Ideas to help our beloved Country, can not become president of the United States?
Fred, It has nothing to do witht the Courts! It is perfectly Legal and your readers should be so informed, even if some of them, might not like it!
VTR
Obama is in the White House and he has never proven his origin of birth. If he is “eligible” Rubio is, also.
Senator,
Eligibility of candidates for Government leaders is a noteworthy issue to discuss . But why Rubio when we have a much more serious situation concerning eligility through criminal fraud by the President who in 1991 stated himself he was born in Kenya (raised in Indonesia ,Hawaii ) which was confirmed by his own Grandmother and Kenya siblings that even named the village he was born in ? There is also other newer verified evidence of mass fraud uncoverd , while Obama keeps all his records sealed and hidden from ANYONE ! It is Criminal Treason for any person to fraudulently obtain the Presidency of this country ! Why do so many refuse to engage in investigation or even discussion of this issue , while we allow this man to remain in the White House continuing his ongoing destruction of America UNCHALLENGED ??? Are we so small and fearful of being called a racist , that we would cringe as shameful silent sheep & look the other way while we talk about Rubio ? LOL
AMEN
It’s bizarre that our ZeroKing could distribute through his publisher in Boston promotional material as part of a larger volume of this publisher’s authors that declared openly and without ambiguity that he, Mr. Obama, proclaims to the Americoa that he was born in Kenya. The cover of the unpublished book states this fact proudly. When this matter was brought to light in our shared public reality, this publisher recanted this biographical datum and claimed that she had made a mista
It’s bizarre that our ZeroKing could distribute through his publisher in Boston promotional material as part of a larger volume of this publisher’s authors that declared openly and without ambiguity that he, Mr. Obama, proclaims to the Americoa that he was born in Kenya. The cover of the unpublished book states this fact proudly. When this matter was brought to light in our shared purlic reality, this publisher recanted this biographical datum and claimed that she had made a mistake! Such conduct is ridiculous and insulting to our intelligence.
Meanwhile, not withstanding Dr. Corsi’s deep probe of the claims and fraudulent documentation of our ZeroKing’s purported Hawaiian nativity, we are left with the cognitive dissonance of the two contradictory claims made by the man himself.
BHO stated without anyone else getting in his way that he was born in Hawaii and Kenya.
The developing theory about this guy is that he is a charlatan, a conman, a sociopathic performance artist, a character escaped simultaneously from a o Columbo Murder Mystery and a James B
Fred, you’re babbling like Algonquin J. Calhoun on this one. Let me inject some political sense here. For years now, a vocal group of Republicans has been arguing that Mr Obama is not eligible to be POTUS because he is not a NBC. The Obamas have spent millions of bucks trying to argue that Mr Obama is qualified, or that (as you seem to be suggesting) it’s a non-issue because the SCOTUS supports a broad interpretation of the NBC definition. Now just imagine what the entire weight of the Democrat Party and their allies in the Media will do to tear into Rubio’s eligibility. Just imagine. A giant tit for tat. Who needs that?
I lean toward a very narrow definition of NBC. Because I never, ever want to have to wonder (as I often do about President Obama) if the office holder’s FIRST allegiance is to the Constitution and the USA.
Then why was there a need for the Fourteenth Amendment at all? If Fred is right then al-awlaki was eligible to be president, and maybe Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. Were his parents born in America?
Fred, it is beyond stupid to define citizenship as a function of where a person is born. Rather it should be defined as a person who at birth had at least one USA citizen parent, or was legally naturalized!
John>>>
PS: Some day a birth will occur on the moon, then what?
Bullshit Fred! Obviously your trying transfer the Rubio argument surreptiously to Obama. That wont work! The accumulated evidence supports that Obama never established his bona fides in 2008 and many Republicans helped in that cover up in order to say we elected the first Black President. Well Obama is about poorest example of his race that could have been elected. The fact is that, since his first day in office, Obama has run a stealth campaign to cover his tracks to his past, and spent millions doing it. This is not a man standing on principle but a man desperate to hide his past. The disgraceful part of this is that many Republicans participated in covering up the dangerous past of Obama.
Major, a few well-placed subpoenae would elicit conclusive evidence that Obama was a natural born American citizen on the day of his birth.
They would also elicit evidence Obama voluntarily relinquished his American citizenship after attaining his majority. He became naturalized as a citizen of Indonesia in the 1960s. Being an Indonesian citizen, he refused to register with the Selective Service, as an adult, in 1979. Had he retained U.S. citizenship, this would have been a federal felony. He entered the United States as Barry Soetoro on an Indonesian passport with a student visa stamped into it. Had he retained American citizenship, he would not have needed a visa.
Having rejected and relinquished American citizenship, Obama also shed constitutional eligibility to the Office of President. He is not now and never has been President (or Senator, or anything else requiring American citizenship).
House RINOs could readily establish Obama’s loss of American citizenship and his constitutional ineligibility. Their refusal to do so violates the Constitution and their oath of office. It is utterly reprehensible and unforgivable. They have joined with the Obama cabal to overthrow the Constitution. May they burn in Hell.
Bullshit back, major. If you are indeed a major you should know better. My daughter was born in Scotland when her father was stationed there with the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. She had dual citizenship which had to be renewed or decided upon by the time she was 21. She married at age 18 and never responded to the Scots regarding her Scottish citizenship. SHE IS ELIGIBLE to the president of the United States of America. You should be ashamed of yourself for doubting Fred Thompson who apparently knows a hell of a lot more about the law than you ever thought of knowing.
AMEN and AMEN!
[...] http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/#comment-2216 ch_client = ""; ch_width = 468; ch_height = 60; ch_type = "mpu"; ch_sid = "Chitika+Default"; ch_backfill = 1; ch_color_site_link = "#128A00"; ch_color_title = "#128A00"; ch_color_border = "#FFFFFF"; ch_color_text = "#000000"; ch_color_bg = "#FFFFFF"; [...]
Posted on July 31, 2012 at 9:06pm
RUBIO NOT A NBC…NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO BE POTUS OR VPOTUS…SORRY JUST THE FACTS!…
Senator Marco Rubio’s Lack of Natural Born Citizenship Update 27 May 2011: See PDF copy of the Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, more than 4 years before his father elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounce his Cuban citizenship
UPDATE 27 May 2011: PDF copy of the Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, more than 4 years before his father elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounce his Cuban citizenship:
Get copy here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971
Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975. Marco Rubio not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP.
A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens who were Citizens of the United States either by birth or naturalization at the time of the birth of the child. A natural born Citizen of the United States is a child born with sole allegiance to the United States, a person born wit
Fred,
I researched and wrote an article on this topic about six months ago. You can find it Here.
http://bcrcc.blogspot.com/2010/09/great-anchor-baby-citizenship-fiasco.html
I would be interested in your reaction to this.
I was born in a public hospital in London, England, in October of 1939 to two American citizens, born in Iowa and Michigan. I have an English birth certificate from the hospital, and I also have a consular birth certificate because my parents registered my birth with the American consulate, properly documented.
My American citizenship is classified as “derivative”, but its date is the date I was born. However, I was required to take an oath of citizenship before a magistrate after my 18th birthday in order to receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission.
My situation is not greatly different from that of John McCain, who was born to American parents in Panama, but NOT within the Canal Zone. I am seriously troubled by the idea that children of our military serving abroad would not receive the same rights as as those stationed here, so I believe that children of native American Government employees stationed abroad should have the same rights as those born here. I would not qualify, because my parents were private citizens.
John McCain would.
Barry “usurper’ Soebarkah AKA, Barack Obama II ‘s BC has been proven to be a forgery by Sheriff Apario Cold Case Posse. Also, Barry’s SSN and selective
service registration data are bogus. Barry , according to this evidence, can’t possibly be a US citizen let alone a natural born one . So, he deserves to be a resident of the
‘big house’” not the WH. This issue is like a big boil on he butt. The longer it goes unattented the worse it gets. Once this ‘boil’ ( Obama’s growing fraud ) is lanced,
all that poison of treasonous accomplicies comes oozing out.
There is already a SCOTUS natural born Citizenship precedent- Minor v Happersett 1875. There is much other settled law and evidence to back up the assertion that a natural born citizen is born in the USA of two American citizen parents on the birth date.” G. Miller / earlier
I have been pushing this for over the last couple of years. congress doesn’t care in upholding the Constitution. Rubio is a lot more qualified to be president than Obama. Obama has never shown proof of any value to prove that he is eligible to hold the office of president – and congress just sits back and watches Rome burn. In my opinion – Obama is a not an American citizen and with his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood is destroying this great country. Joe the Plumber would be a better president. He started the uprising in Egypt followed by Libya and a good chance that the Muslim Brotherhood is also involved in Syria and is slowly getting a foothold in our government.
In 2008 she presented a Short Form Certificate Of Live Birth to run for President and when questioned, treated it as a joke. On April 27, 2011 he issued a new Long Form COLB that is a complete forgery. A criminal act. Thank God for Michele Bachmann and her group. I also understand that not one member in Congress has quested either of these two earlier COLB. In a New Jersey court hearing on Obama’s name being on the Nov. ballot, Obama’s lawyer stated that they knew the the lastist COLB was a forgery in court. What is congress waiting for, concentration camps for all non-Obama followers along with Death Panels for people my age. Fred, I believe that you fit in this age group. But you have a Congressional payout for life along with medical care that is a true entitlement. Stop pushing Reverse Mortgages, your lowering yourself.
David Walz A Very Concerned American & Veteran 1953-55
dwa61@bellsouth.net
PS: Has anyone questioned Obama’s Social Security number.
Fred,
I took you for a much smarter and patriotic person! Do some research. Our poor Constitution and national heritage are trampled upon and our nation is at the brink. Good God, man, help us bring it back, not give aid and comfort to they who seek to destroy Her. I fear what will happen after the election, no matter which phoney baloney manages to fake their way in. America goes the way of Rome and November 6 is our last chance.
There are rules and/or laws as to who is eligible for P or VP, but where is the process managed, who oversees the process that determines whether one is eligible? Mostly sited above, but how is that enforced. Is that left to the minds of the political party, to the un-named shadow organization, pure happenstance or don’t care. Surely we don’t ask the Press for that.
If we as conservatives want to get bogged down in a Constitutional argument and dismiss what a Marco Rubio could bring to our candidate, Romney, shame on us. Rubio was born here – we know that. We aren’t sure if Obama even was. Marco’s parents fled Cuba because of the revolution. Obama was obviously not disqualified to be President even though his father was born in Kenya. Why didn’t we protest that? WE aren’t getting anywhere with this after the fact protest.
This is now and we better focus on what can bring us an administration that will focus on turning this ship around or we are headed over a cliff. The Founding Fathers were concerned with foreign influences in the new America. That was 200 years ago. The principle is still the same. We want a natural born citizen who grew up in this country, was educated here, knows our history and appreciates what this country represents. Marco Rubio is a good choice. He will add charisma, attract youth and Hispanics who are now a large voting block, and loves America for the opportunity it gave him and his parents. As our world changes, yes we must hold onto our principles but if we want to be relevant and make the difference in keeping our country great, we have to carefully and realistically realize this is a different America today. Let’s win the White House and exert our conservative invluence.
Fred, I like ya, and think you’re a stand up guy. I would’ve voted for you in 2008 had you hung in there in your run, and not blown the opportunity with a luke warm nominating speech. Maybe it was Freudian…?? you didn’t really have the fire in yer belly for it, it seemed. So that’s history.
But yer just wrong on this issue.. I won’t repeat much of what others have already made a good case for here… I will just say that we have to hold RUBIO to the same standards that we hold Obummer to!! No matter the appeal and sexiness of the candidate, we cannot let a challenge to the Constitution get a pass on EMOTION or DECEPTION!!
I think the only reason Obummer got in, was precisely for those reasons, and we have reaped the DEVIL for it!
That exception stood for a powerful notice that America would not be ruled by England or anyone else who did not have AMERICAN INTERESTS at heart. This exception was just one way they established a CONDITION to rise to that office. It was relevant in 1776, and it’s still relevant TODAY.
PS, since we can’t edit our posts, I should make a correction to my wording, “that America would not be ruled by England or anyone else..”[unquote]
I should say that the notice is that we as Americans will not be GOVERNED by anyone from England, or otherwise, who does not have AMERICAN INTERESTS alone, at heart. Our President is NOT our ruler, he is there to serve as a temporary leader, with our consent!
Sorry but I have to disagree and feel that it is time for me to part ways with your website and letter. I don’t have time to disagree with you nor read opinions that I believe are unfounded.
According to the 18th-century legal definition of “natural born citizen” which is what the writers of the Constitution used, it means both parents must be citizens, naturalized or otherwise. The founders did indeed mean this definition as it is only in the qualifications for the presidency that they used the term. Rubio and Jindahl were both born after their respective parents became nauralized citizens. Needless to say, Obama was NEVER eligible to be president as his father was NEVER a US citiizen. Now, if you want to aid and abet the Democrats in using the Constitution as a shoe wipe, then go ahead: Figure out a way that two wrong do make a right.
A “Natural Born Citizen” is just that… you are born a citizen of the United States, primarily due to your location at birth. It can’t be more clear: NBC’s have not become citizens at some time following birth, there is no point where they haven’t been citizens (unless they relinquish citizenship at some point). It does not matter who your parents are or aren’t (except for parents serving in an official governmental/military capacity, I believe). It has only to do with their LOCATION at time of birth (i.e. the USA, a US territory, embassy, base, ship, aircraft, etc). The only exception I can think of, as I mentioned before, is for those who have parents serving the US in an official govermental/military capacity, yet are born away from US soil/property (i.e. in a foreign hospital while a parent is an embassador). I have no idea why people are actually debating this, with so many more important topics.
Rubio must be born of TWO natural born citizens to be eligible! Haven’t we saw enough from the usurper-in-chief to ever open that Pandora’s box again? Obama was not looking to the dreams of his American mother but his American hating Kenyan father. I am a big fan of Rubio but he is NOT eligible so I will not be voting for Romney if Rubio is on the ticket. The best thing the entranced Republicans can do is grow a pair and finally challenge Obama’s forged documentation, SS#,Secret Service card, college records, passport, birth certificate, law license and so on.
Assuring we have a truly eligible candidate should be the top priority given the miss an usurper has gotten this country in. Been there, done that…..NO thanks!
Only the U.S. Constitution counts, not a judge. Read and understand Article II, Section 1, clause 5 – only a Natural Born Citizen, born of two citizens (not one), may hold the office of Commander in Chief. Clause 6 – same requirement for the vice president, in order to suceed the sitting president. Mr. Rubio is a fine politician, but the Constitution states clearly that he is not eligible. Neither is Barack Obama, nor Bobby Jindal. Preserve and Protect the Constitution, or we will sink into anarchy.
Edward Cooper, Aztec, NM 87410
Incorrect.
Has the common law of England been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution?
There is in the Constitution no Article, Section, Clause, or anything whatsoever which incorporates the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.
The common law of England has not been declared to be a part of the law of the United States by the Constitution.
Has there been any Amendment to the Constitution or any legislated Act to incorporate the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States?
There has not been any Amendment or Act incorporating the common law of England into the Federal government of the United States.
Is there in the Constitution any grant to the federal judiciary authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing?
There is in the Constitution no grant to the federal judiciary authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing.
Could the common law of England become part of the law of the United States by its being part of the law of each of the states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
Although this would be giving efficacy to the inferior instead of the superior and a direct violation of U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, could it be possible?
The law of each state prior to the adoption of the Constitution consisted of the common law of England, the state constitution, and the acts of the state legislature.
The common law of England then was only one of three pillars on which the law of each state was built. It was also the weakest of the three; because it ceased to have any efficacy as law as soon as it was clearly contradicted by either of the others.
If the common law became a part of the law of the United States, because it was part of the law of the individual state, the other two parts of the law of those states must also become a part of the law of the United States, and for the same reason.
But it may be said that these other two parts of the law of each state were dissimilar in the different states, and therefore could not become a part of the law of the United States; whereas the common law of England, in every state being the same, it might become the common law of the United States.
Is the common law of England in every state the same?
The acts of the British parliament are in force in the different states up to different periods; in some to the reign of one king, in others to that of a different king.
Thus the common law of England would be different in these two states.
But the great difference which has been made in the common law in the different states, has proceeded from the changes which have been made in it, by the acts of all the legislatures of the different states, from the time of their first settlement.
Not only is the common law of England different among the states, each state legislature has altered it in different ways; thus the common law of the various states is in no way uniform.
The common law being materially different in all the sates, how can there be any common law in the United States? How shall it be determined which of the states shall be considered as the standard, so far as to make their common law, the common law of the United States? Shall it be a majority of the states; or shall it be those states which contain a majority of the people of the United States? &c &c
Incorporation of the common law into the Federal govt is impracticable. Further, whatever species of the common law of England extant in the law or Constitution of the several states at the time of the Adoption – or at any time – are by U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 prohibited from incorporation into the Federal government.
Therefor, in no way can the Federal govt. be said to be based on, or to have incorporated, the common law of England.
The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined by the Constitution. Federal judicial reliance on the common law of England is a dangerous usurpation and a direct subversion of the fundamental principle of separation of powers. Any incorporation of English common law is not a Judicial power, it is a power of the Legislature.
This judicial myth of the common law of England being a part of federal law is a dangerous usurpation. Federal court judges misconstrue the doctrine of stare decisis, “to stand by things decided”, mistakenly believing that the common law of England actually is incorporated into federal law since a prior court said so. A court can not establish a new grant of power to itself!
The unsanctioned assumption of power not granted does not establish precedent in the sense of stare decisis. The federal Judiciary can not grant itself powers, and then “stand by powers self-granted”.
English common law is not a part of our national law, any federal judge’s claim notwithstanding. This terribly mistaken idea gained currency circa 1845 and O. W. Holmes was its chief proponent. The border insecurities, the bankrupting of our municipalities and hospitals, etc, are in no small measure symptoms of the “anchor baby” crisis birthed by Justice Gray’s reliance on this alien system of law.
- – - -
Further explanation as to why English common law can not be the basis of the Federal govt. can be found at the Library of Congress:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fawbib:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28bbf0081%29%29
The explanation is found in the Appendix to “Correspondence between George Nicholas Esq. of Kentucky, and the Hon. Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, on the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 1798″ The Appendix is titled, “Observations of Judge Addisons Charge to the Grand Jury On the Liberty-of-the-Press”
The relevant pages of the original document, as well as a transcript from those images, is available at scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89761472/
Hey, United States Supreme Court:
“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Thank you for illustrating the point, that the Constitution is “framed in the language of the English common law” and to be so interpreted because a judge said so. Rather than refuting my point, you’ve reinforced it.
Some Framers’ wisdom for you:
James Madison in a letter to Jefferson, Jan 18, 1800, states that admitting the common law as legal federal law of the United States “would confer on the judicial department a discretion little short of a legislative power” since federal courts would “decide what parts of the common law would, and what would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of the United States” and thus would “erect them [judges] into legislators”
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Edmund Randolph, August 18, 1799, wrote, “Of all the doctrines which have ever been broached by the federal government, the novel one, of the common law being in force and cognizable as an existing law in their courts, is to me the most formidable. All their other assumptions of un-given powers have been in the detail. The bank law, the treaty doctrine, the sedition act, alien act, the undertaking to change the State laws of evidence in the State courts by certain parts of the stamp act, &c. &c. have been solitary, unconsequential, timid things, in comparison with the audacious, barefaced and sweeping pretension to a system of law for the United States, without the adoption of their legislature, and so infinitively beyond their power to adopt.”
Fred Thompson…..with all due respect sir, you are an idiot. There is no need to rehash what a good number of Patriots have already laid out as to what a Natural-Born Citizen means. You need to get educated on the matter….and stop the lame argument that being a NBC is open to interpretation. As charismatic as Rubio may be….we don’t want him….do you understand??? Even as a Half-Latino, I could NOT in my heart of hearts vote for Romney if he makes such a stupid decision as to pick Rubio. Personally, I think Romney is taking a dive for Obama the same way that McCain did. If you have connections to the RNC, then why not suggest that they light a fire under Romney to get him to go after Obama’s sealed records and fraudulent documents?? Yeah…it is obvious that the fix is in. In addition, why don’t you talk to Jerome Corsi or Joseph Farah of World Net Daily….I’m sure they can cure that minor case of ignorance you are suffering from.
Are RINOS they so out of touch that they think they can get away with repeating Jack Maskell’s ludicrous legal fallacies and misquotes to a public which has taught itself about Article II eligibility for four years?
The intent of the Framers in writing Art II, § 1 clause 5 is to be found in Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, Book I, chap 19, §§ 212 and 217: Natural Born Citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, with an exception for the children of military and diplomatic personnel abroad.
The relevant Supreme Court precedent is Minor v Happersett from March 29, 1875: Natural Born Citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, with no mention of any exception — that is why McCain is NOT eligible either according to positive law, pending another Supreme Court decision which he should have been asking for but didn’t.
Wong Kim Ark merely repeats the Minor definition of an NBC, and to find that Wong, being born of foreign parents, is NO such NBC and therefore could only be a citizen through its particular interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
If Rubio is nominated, it will be such a slap in the face of Article II eligibility experts, and there are millions of them, that it will in itself be enough to cause the re-election of the so-called “Obama”.
The so-called “Obama” who belongs in jail and not in the White House, if only because he forged his alleged Selective Service registration card, a felony which disqualifies him for any public office whatsoever.
Fred,
The 14th Amendment was written to give citizenship to former slaves and their offspring not to give citizenship to every Tom, Dick and Harry who happened to be born on U.S. soil like millions of Anchor Babies born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil.
By your interpretation, an Anchor Baby would be eligible to be President even though both his/her parents were illegally in the U.S….. I don’t think so, I think that our Founding Fathers are folling over in their graves thinking that just anyone born on U.S. soil could become President.
Well, they are, just as they are born citizens. You don’t have to like it, though it isgoodfor our country, but nonetheless that is actuality.
What a disappointment Fred has turned out to be. Just another establishment politician unwilling to stand by the Constitution and the Supreme Courts previous decision clarifying this question in Minor v Happerset. Fred, take me off of your mailing list.
My only problem with Rubio is not his brave immigrant Cuban parents, but the fact that he’s another politico with only 2 years in the senate being considered for the leader of the free world (runner up.) We’ve tried that. And in the immortal words of Sarah Palin
“how’s dat hopie changie thingie workin’ for yah,”‘
Dear Travis:
Mr. Rubio is not just another-2-year-do-nothing polticians from Chicago that never work in his life. Sen. Rubio was the youngest Mayority Learder in the State of Florida Legislature, always committed and working very hard for his constituency, as well as, on behalf of all Florida residents, while in the U.S. Senate, he has been working hard ar curving Obama’s uncontrolled spending habits i.e. a $ 16 Trillion Deficit that will never be repay, soliacist laws that only benefit the lacy and social welfare-hanger-on, at our Tax expense,while also working on a reasonable – perhaps not perfect – solution to the Immigration Problem.
Sen. Rubio doesn’t need to play his ancestry card to be recognized by all his accomplishments – unlike Mr. Big Spender and Vacations Freak, Mr. Obama – who after 3 and a half years, has nothing to prove to the American People but every failure in the book, reason why he refuses to bring it up… Evern Gold Medal Winer, Gabrielle Douglas (17) has worked harder, and accomplished much more than either Obama or Michelle will, in the next 100 years.
You may Vote as you wish but, you also ought to recognize other people’s accomplishment, specially, when they are trying to “rescue our Country” from Obama’s disastrous Socialist Experiment!
Thank you.
VTR
These comments are overall astounding. All are so certain of the definition of “natural born citizen”, which in fact is not defined in the Constitution. Byron York has also addressed this question and he and Fred Thompson have the law of their side. Marco Rubio is eigible to be President.
It takes 30 minutes to read the US Constitution and once upon a time Americans took the time to read it. It was a big deal and Americans took pride in understanding every word. Natural born is not defined but it was talked about and understood by US citizens. SFC Graig Yarbrough, US Army (Ret, fourth commenter on this blog gives the link to where the definition of natural born is found, and even quotes Alexander Hamilton saying they relied on this source when writing the US Constitution. If you have not followed the references then this must not really be important to you. If you do follow the links and read the definition of natural born, then I would be curious as to your thoughts. Until then, this blog is just he said, she said.
If you have not taken the time to do the research to realize that Rubio is eligible, then this issue just not be important to you, perhaps because you are more interested in a make-believe idea of how our country works than how it actually does?
Thompson hasn’t a clue.
He talks about the 14th Amendment and doesn’t even know what ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ means
Well, what does it mean?
It means a FULL & COMPLETE JURISDICTION
and do we mean by “full and complete jurisdiction”
“NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYONE ELSE. THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS”
notice the quotation marks embracing that last bit
THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF THE AUTHOR/MAN* RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THIS KEY PHRASE ‘SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF’ IN THE AMENDMENT HE IS TELLING US, IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS WHAT IS MEANT BY THE TERM
*LYMAN TRUMBULL
@ Daryn Kent-Duncan
Art. II, §1, cl. 5 “natural” born Citizen is perfectly defined in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, that ordained our laws would be based on the self-evident fact that all men are created equal. Allowing Sen. Rubio access to the ruling class* without the inheritance of his US Citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of his US Citizen father, is unequal, illegal and unconstitutional.
The plenary authority of government cannot create the ruling class. Only the consent of the governed can create their own ruling class.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*Art. II, §1, cl. 5: the qualifications of the President and Vice-President of the United States i.e. the ruling class.
According to a Wenzel poll published in March, more than 40 percent of eligible voters — and at least two thirds of GOP voters — KNOW that you must be born of US citizen parents in order to be eligible to the Presidency and vice-presidency.
– something which each and every member of the political class knew and acknowledged for more than two centuries, until April 30, 2008 included.
Those GOP Pooh-bahs who think they can peddle well-worn fallacies to those millions of concerned citizens who, because they know “Obama” is ineligible, have read Vattel, Minor and Wong Kim Ark, are severely deluded.
Do they live in a world of their own or are they trying to sabotage their party’s Presidential run by having it choose a Constitutionally ineligible candidate like it did in 2008?
Daryn Kent-Duncan:
It didn’t NEED to be defined in the Constitution since the Founders clearly knew what it meant but it was the subject of discussion is specific a subcommittee meeting or meetings on the matter.
Moving right along it was also defined in the Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and has been upheld/cofirmed in other decisions since inclding the infamous Wong Kim Ark case at a later date. The definition is CLEARLY established whether you know of it or not.
Many of us learned the definition quite likely before ex-Sen. Thompson did and almost surely before you did when we in school even before high school. That definition is – and always has been – a “natural born Citizen” is a child born to two US citizen parents on US soil. I suggestyou do some reading on Mario Apuzzo’s website … just Google it.
Reading on Mario’s website will only provide you with complete made-up BS on natural born citizenship.
Re: “Many of us learned the definition quite likely before ex-Sen. Thompson did and almost surely before you did when we in school even before high school. ”
Actually what you were told was that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and referred to the place of birth. The fact that you do not remember that, only means that you were a lousy scholar. The meaning does not refer to parents, not even one (much less two). If the writers of the US Constitution had meant to change the meaning from the common law meaning, which refers to the place of birth, to something different based on parents, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.
Senator Thompson is right, Meese is right, Jeb Bush and Giuliani—who recommended Rubio as vp and are lawyers so they know the meaning of Natural Born Citizen–are right—senators Hatch and Greham—who said that an NBC is simply someone born in the country—are right. Wikipedia is right, the Wall Street Journal is right, Yale Law Review is right, the five state courts that recently ruled on Obama that the meaning of NBC was defined by Wong Kim Ark and comes from the common law, are right. The members of the US Electoral College, none of whom changed a vote to vote against Obama despite a letter writing campaign by birthers and two-fers, are right. And you are wrong.
The Constitution does not define what the meanis of “is” is, either; it didn’t prevent a crooked politician from trying to sow doubt on the issue.
For the Framers, who used it as a textbook of Public and International Law, the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” was found in Vattel’s “Le Droit des gens” (1758):
The Natural Born Citizen of a country is someone born in said country, of parents who were themselves its citizens. He is said to be “natural born” because no choice whatsoever, on the part of anyone, is needed to make him a citizen thereof.
Neither Byron York, Fred Thompson or anyone else who has proferred that “natural born Citizen” means anyone born in the country has cited any Court case, much less any SCOTUS case, which has in fact defined the term “natural born Citizen”. The only Court case, moreover the only SCOTUS case, which has in fact defined the term “natural born Citizen” was Minor v Happersett — and it defined “natural born Citizen” as born in the country to citizen parents(plural) of the country.
The SCOTUS case that defined Natural Born was the Wong Kim Ark case, which said:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that every child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born. That, BTW, followed the Minor vs Happersett ruling, and so it would have overturned it, if Minor vs Happersett actually was a ruling on the matter, which it wasn’t.
Also complete BS.
The Minor court did indeed state in dicta that those born on the soil to 2 citizen parents are nbc. They then also stated there are those who go further and include those born on the soil regardless of the status of their parents. They state there are doubts about the latter, but not who had those doubts. They then expressly declined to settle those doubts. The court in Wong Kim Ark then settled those doubts and courts have told birther “attorneys” so.
Are you Fred, saying that an ILLEGAL family can come here and have a kid, and that kid can later become President?
That’s exactly what he’s saying, as has the Supreme Court.
Fred, and I contributed to your campaign last time around! I may not be a lawyer, but I have taught 4th and 5th grade social studies.
There are 3 classes of citizens:
Naturalized Citizens-Citizens through the Immigration and Naturalization process
Native born Citizens- Citizens who are born on U.S. soil, AND whose parents are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. which is how the 14th ammendment covered Native Americans and former slaves. Diplomatic visas for example are exempt from such jurisdiction ergo the children of diplomats born on U.S. soil are not considered Native born. This begs the larger question, are the children of illegal aliens, whose parents are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they have NO immigration status,born on U.S. soil considered to really be Native born citizens?
Natural Born Citizens-Citizens born on U.S. Soil AND who have 2 Citizen parents (either naturalized or Native born or any combination).
Minor vs. Happersett clearly spells things out. This is not rocket science.
The United States subscribed to Vattels Law of Nationa and that states that to be a Natural Born Citizens you must have two parents who are citizens and born on the soil of the country. Marco Rubio was born in the U.S.A., in 1971 and his parents did not become citizens until 1977. Bobby Jindal was born in the U.S. and his parents were not citizens. As for Gov. Nikki Haley and Ted Cruiz, they do not have to be Natural Born as they did not run for V.P. or President of the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled according to the Law which they subscribed to and in 1875 in the case of Miner vs. Happersett ruled that to be Natural Born you must be born by two citizens either by Naturalization or Birth on the Land. IT IS CLEAR RUBIO DOES NOT QUALIFY
Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. Vattel recommended that every county should have a state religion and force people to join it or to leave the country—and we did not follow that. So there is no evidence that we followed the Vattel definition of Natural Born either. And the COMMON definition of Natural Born was from the common law, which referred to the place of birth. If the writers of the Constitution had intended to change the meaning of Natural Born from the common meaning at the time to a new meaning, they would have told us.
Mr. Fred Thompson should read “Vattels Law of Nations” so he will get clarification as what is or is not a Natural Born Citizen and then when he makes a comment, he will know what he is talking about. He should also look at previous court cases on this going back to 1875 and once again he will have clarification and realize Rubio in not qualified Constitutionally to be President.
Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.
In order to become either a vice presidential or presidential candidate, one must be born in an American state of two American citizen parents. Barack Obama didn’t qualify, nor does Marco Rubio. Obama is an unconstitutional president. This fact will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Seemingly smart people have made so many ignorant statements. Soon will come the time that these smart people will have to prove whether they are really smart or really ignorant by rejecting facts or adopting them. Romney will cause himself a serious political problem if he nominates Rubio for his vice president.
What kind of background did Obama have……..?? And enough idiots voted for him! But this time around, NOWAY!
Fred knows darn well what he is doing… The bidding of the powers that be, higher up the food chain than him. Thanks Sheriff Joe for your work investigating Obamas Forgeries and Fraud. Bet Fred thinks that is not worth reporting on either.
BTW, How are those “Reverse Mortgages” selling?
THANK YOU SENATOR THOMPSON! This is a well thought out entry and one EVERYONE should read and UNDERSTAND!
According to the law he is elligible for the position he now holds, which I disagree, the person and its parents should be born in this country , in his case there is a conflict of interest, remember his parents were living here, Fidel took power they went back, things evidently or were not lgiven what was promised (an assumption) and they came back and had Rubio, as my experience and anyone that lives in this area (south florida-=miami-dade) you ask anyone that was born here, but their parents aRE they will say they are cubans, therefore, that demonstrates there is no ltrue love or feeling for our country.
No he is NOT ELLIGIBLE for VP, he was born here but not his parents, to be natural born your parents (both) must have been in the USA and american citizens, at the time of birth. Besides he is not have the capacity to hold this position, he may not be as stupid as Biden, but he is all talk, talks well, he is young, presentable but trust me he is all about Rubio. I live in Miami, had him in my district, legislature, he was Jeb bush’s puppet, he truly screwed us w/home insurance, car. As I said before it would be a disaster for the usa I pray to God 24 hrs. that Romney gets elected and rid us of the person we now have, big mistake for constituents, they didn’t much thinking or did not listen, but if he gets re-elected this will be our last election, and no more USA. God forbid. Thank you.
Sorry, the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
Fred, I voted for you and appreciate your level headed analysis. In light of our recent ruling on the ACA, we’ll likely never get a court to do the right thing anyhow. However, I would encourage you to educate yourself on JUSTIAGATE….since you don’t mention Minor. We have major fraud going on in the country…and I’m not participating.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/m-justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html
Fred,
Words mean something. This was especially true to the Founders who did not willy-nilly place superfluous words into our founding document over which they carefully deliberated for many months. If our Constitution states that our President must be a “natural born Citizen,” it is clear that the Founders meant the requirement to be more restrictive than just simply being born a citizen. Obviously the qualifier “natural” adds a further important something or the Founders would have simply written “born Citizen” (which was their initial inclination, by the way).
If you cross a donkey with a horse, a jackass results. The result is neither a natural born donkey nor a natural born horse. What ensues is an unnatural hybrid, a half-breed mix that is neither truly donkey nor horse and is, in fact, sterile and unable to reproduce its own kind (let alone a donkey or a horse). I submit to the reader that, politically, our Founders would have considered Obama to be just such a jackass (not a natural born Citizen of any country).
By examining the writings of the Founders, one can clearly see that the intent of the natural born Citizen requirement was to ensure that our Commander-in-Chief be born with sole, exclusive allegiance to the country that was to entrust him with its command. Obama, by his own admission, was born equally a citizen of Great Britain as recognized by US treaty and law. It is insanity to suggest that the Founders would have ever intended that such a person, born with equal allegiance to their former bloody enemy, be given command of their own military forces.
When two horses mate it takes no law to ensure that they do not produce a dog or a donkey. It is by nature that only a horse ensues. That is the clear and obvious meaning of the constitutional phrase “natural born.” To produce a Citizen by nature and nature alone (no law required) requires two parents who themselves are resident Citizens. This was the Founders’ understanding in their use and inclusion of the phrase, natural born Citizen.
Yes, words truly do mean something.
PS: I detest Romney’s flip-flopping anti-conservatism, but, unlike Obama, at least he is a natural born Citizen who is American at heart. The only thing that will keep me from voting for the “not Obama” candidate, whoever that may be (please, grant us the miracle of a brokered convention), is if a non nbC like Jindal or Rubio is part of the ticket. Why risk going there and losing million of aware voters like me when 90+ percent of the available choices are unquestionably true natural born Citizens?
Rubio is not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because that takes two parents to be citizens either naturalized or born on the soil of the country. This was established by our Supreme Court in 1875 and was taken from Vattels Law of Nations from which the United States took the law from. It was a decision in our Supreme Court in the case of Miner vs. Happersett. Rubio was born in 1971 and his parents did not become citizens until 1975 so there is no way he can be a Natural Born Citizen even though he is a citizen. Bobby Jindal cannot be a Natural Born Citizen as when he was born neither of his parents were citizens. As for Gov. Nicki Haley and Ted Cruz they are citizens and there is no requirement for the office that they hold to be Natural Born. That requirement is only applied to the President and Vice President of the United States. That is why Arnold Swartzenegger never ran for President. Barack in NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because his Father was not a U.S. Citizen, however he was never vetted and the press let his get away with it as he was to them their Messiah. (BS) I think Fred that you had better read Vattels Law of Nations from which our country subscribed to and included in our Laws and requirement to be President and V.P. You may also wish to read the Supreme Court Decision of 1875 which is still in force.
My husband and I where not American Citizens when both our daughters where born,we had to wait 5 years being legal residents to apply for the citizenship.We are both Cubans…We travel to Spain so he could become a Doctor and then return to Unites States…My daughters travel with an American Passport and only legal citizens by birth or choise can hace this passport…Marcos Rubio is a born citizen the same as the daughters or sons of the Italian,British,Irish immigrants who had kids born here…The question is if he is quualified for the position,not is he is an America Citizen by birth or not..He is an American Citizen either you like it or not….I wonder if all this people asking this questions did the same with Mr. Obama….
So, according to Mr. Thompson, any child whose Mexican citizen parents who sneak across the border just in time to drop the child in the US, is eligible to be President.
If that is actually true, we need to change the damn Constitution to define a NBC as a child born of two American citizens. Period.
If you want to know why America is down the rat hole then look no further. I like Mr. Thompson but this was idiotic and patently not true. Our forefathers were specific about Natural Born Citizen AND Barack Obama is EXACTLY why they put that clause in there…So we didn’t get a “President’ who hates our country as he does. If the GOP traitors had an loyalty to America they would have pursued this with Obama like the left pursued it with McCain in 2008. Instead they allowed a criminal usurper to literally destroy our country. Nice. And they wonder why the Tea Party is determined to weed out the trash and put real Conservatives in place?
Obama has NEVER submitted ANY of the requested standard documents ALL candidates get hit up for…He SEALED all of his records and posted a forged BS on the internet. And Fred Thompson is perfectly fine with the Manchurian Moonbat in the Oval Office having the Nuclear Codes. Sickening.
From a friend of mine:
Answers to Fred:
The judge in the State of New York case of Lynch v Clarke used the term “natural born” and “native born” interchangeably, without citing his reasoning. The US Constitution only refers to “natural born” in respect to the office of President. all other references are merely “citizen” indicating a distinct difference.
U.S. v Wong Kim Ark found Wong Kim Ark to be a “citizen” and did not call him a “natural born citizen”. If they meant “natural born” they would have said so.
14th Amendment:
“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.” Note “citizen” not “natural born citizen”. Fred grossly stretches the meaning of Article II, section 1 without providing precedent for this view.
Fred leaves out the obvious citation: Minor v Happersett, where Vattel’s view was restated and accepted as precedent (U.S. v Wong Kim Ark relied on Minor’s findings).
In the end, there is no federal court precedent that Fred based his opinion on. Apparently Fred believes that anchor babies are eligible to be President (even without birth certificates?).
The United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Rubio’s parents were not United States Citizens when he was born and hence he’s ineligible.
The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.
Fred, you really need to wake up
Fred,
You are so wrong it is not worth the space to go into the details. You doubt that the framers included NBC because they wanted to avoid foreign influence? What is do you think “natural” means? And, please explain the difference between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ as intended by the founders. You say that those that take the SCOTUS opinions on this are wrong. You sir have spun a couple court cases here – you sir are wrong in that regard. And the 14th has nothing whatsoever to do with NBC.
Perhaps most illustrative of the weakness of your argument is that you have refused to post the legal arguments of Mario Appuzo, Esq. on your blog. His comment to you has been posted elsewhere, and like always it is cogent, well researched (unlike yours), and correct. Silencing those that disagree with you, particularly someone as scholarly as Attorney Apuzzo, smacks of the methods so often employed by the left in this country.
Marco Rubio is not eligible – there is nothing natural about how he acquired his citizenship. Acquired naturally, one does not need an act of law to be a citizen – Rubio is naturalized by an act of law. Barack Obama is a dual citizen, holding citizenship of Great Britain, something he bragged about in 2008. Please convince us all that the founders would be OK with a Brit being POTUS and CIC – that they believed this was NBC.
Not only does your argument not make sense legally, it makes no sense logically. Have you changed your registration to Democrat yet?
Kanbun, you are so wrong it is not worth going into the details, except to note that Mario Puzzo has a post right here in these comments, demonstrating even more immediately your errors. His arguments have been adjudicated as “without merit,” but nonetheless they still are here.
How about Obama was he bron in the USA ?
The Marxist usurper has yet to show any valid legal proof he was born in the USA. He is now firmly linked to multiple forged documents (birth certificate(s), draft registration) and stolen Social Security numbers. Of course, there is the literary biography. used for 17 years, claiming he was born in Kenya, and only changed a couple of months after he decided to run for Prez, after saying he didn’t have enough experience to do so. His grandmother said she saw him born in Kenya, although was pressured to change her story., The Kenyan ambassador and the Kenyan legislature both said he was born there, as did multiple magazine articles.
There is still an alleged Kenyan birth certificate floating around, with a footprint. If we could compare a jizz sample from Bubba Clinton, why not this footprint, too?
1. Obama has shown not one but two birth certificates proving he was born in the Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii has provided now one but two independent verifications of his certificate in additional to a statement from their Attorney General’s office. It is intellectually dishonest to stuff cover your eyes and ears and shout “nyah, nhah I can’t hear you” in the face of the evidence. Obama’s birth was in the Honolulu Health Bureau Statistics newspaper column back in 1961 too.
2. The documents are only called forgeries by unqualified birthers. Real credentialed forensic document examiners say the document does not show signs of forgery.. The selective service document was released by the Bush Administration, and it’s absurd to suggest that some Obama agent slipped the document onto the Selective Service’s computer system and microfilm records. And while people claim Obama stole someone’s social-security number, they never have come up with exactly whose number he supposedly stole, nor any rationale as to why he did it. In fact, many folks have numbers that don’t match the usual state code series. It just happens.
The grandmother interview was edited. She said (in translation) that she was “present” (somewhere) when “he” (somebody) was born. But when the caller makes it clear what he thinks she said, she immediately corrects him and says unambiguously that Obama was born in Hawaii where his father was living. INS records prove both that Obama Sr. never went to Hawaii in 1961 and that no US citizen flew from Kenya to the US between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962.
The Kenyan Ambassador was misunderstood as proved by a follow-up conversation the next day. There were a few newspaper articles that said Obama was born in Kenya, but none of them ever gave a source for this, but rather issued corrections.
The alleged Kenyan birth certificate with the footprints is from a convicted forger who tried to sell it on eBay for big bucks. It is filled with internal inconsistencies, one of which is to list a hospital administrator signing it BEFORE that person held the post, and that it contained dates in the US format (mm/’dd/yyyyy) instead of the Kenyan format (dd/mm/yyyy).
Birthers believe the truth is from unqualified persons, crooks and typos and that everyone who has real documentation is lying. It is an irresponsible way to process evidence.
Fred, you see the kind of junk I have to put up with?
Oh my God, you’re a bigger idiot than everyone says you are. Are you kidding me? Get a grip you fool. You’re a sick individual.
Obama showed digital images.
“Real credentialed forensic document examiners say the document does not show signs of forgery.. ”
Prove this statement.
That’s been done already. Are you too lazy to notice?
Re: “prove this statement.”
Answer: Delighted.
he following experts say that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, and the State of Hawaii, which is the real expert, certainly hasn’t.
Dr. Neil Krawetz, an imaging software analysis author and experienced examiner of questioned images, said: “The PDF released by the White House shows no sign of digital manipulation or alterations. I see nothing that appears to be suspicious.”
Nathan Goulding with The National Review: “We have received several e-mails today calling into question the validity of the PDF that the White House released, namely that there are embedded layers in the document. There are now several other people on the case. We looked into it and dismissed it. … I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.”
John Woodman, independent computer professional, said in a series of videos that the claims of fakery that he examined were unfounded.
Ivan Zatkovich, who has testified in court as a technology expert, and consultant to WorldNetDaily: “All of the modifications to the PDF document that can be identified are consistent with someone enhancing the legibility of the document.” (BTW, WND commissioned Zatkovich to write an article on his opinion of whether Obama’s birth certificate was forged to run on WND, and when Zatkovich did not say what they wanted, they simply did not run it.)
How would you like to hear about the birther experts—one of whom keeps insisting that Obama did not go to Columbia College, though Columbia Univefrsity says that he did. And another of whom claims to have found the original altar of Abraham.
No, you’re wrong. Elvis came down from the flying saucer where he plays canasta with Bigfoot and the Tooth Fairy, and planted the phony documents so BHO could be president.
Get your non-facts straight, otherwise nobody will take you seriously!
Funny schtick, but a straw man. Nobody is claiming Obama would fraudulently register a birth in HI so he could one day be POTUS. It was to get US citizenship…plain and simple.
If his mother knew and cared about the subtleties of the law at the time to have any doubt about her child being born an American citizen anywhere in the world based on the fact that he was America , she would have done the easy thing which is to just stay put in Hawii and have her son there. She had no qualms having her daughter in Indonesia without any need to resort to the hard work of deception. After slicing and dicing the fantasy of Ann Dunham spending a fortune to go to Kenya by herself in a very difficult time and place for travel, much less by a pregnant woman, it remains likely her son would have been born American anyway even in that fantasy. But even if not, hard to imagine her playing such games when it still would have been easier to get her child naturalized than commit such international fraud with no records if her or her infant son’s travels.
Should read: “based on the fact that *she* was American”
As far as I am concerned, Marco Rubio is as eligible as any other weathered politician, and then some. He is remarkable in numerous ways that would make him the quintessential President of the United States, let alone a Vice President.
Damn those ignoramuses who concentrate on a candidate’s religion, place of birth despite being a US citizen, and political rhetoric that offends the weak minded. He is eloquent, bright, informed, articulate and versatile. He is the marrow, as well as the heart and soul of American freedom, liberty and democracy. The distinctive quality of Marco Rubio is his amiable, astute and pliant ability to communicate with his constituents, and to convey with sincerity his untarnished stance to audiences; and most of all, his shrewd intellect, and gracious ability of absorption within his political element .
As for the communist news media, they ambitiously and maliciously ridicule and attempt to destroy everyone who maintains any inkling of conservative expression. Marco Rubio is only one such political victim, who unfortunately, comes under a torrent of this media’s propaganda and abuse. The Marxist media tortuously and convolutedly publicizes prefabricated and contaminated rubbish that they would have one believe, since they are universally and umbilically attached to profane, intimidating, libelous daily trash that low-life’s scoop up and injest without question or evaluation due to cranial dysfunction.
Now, as a choice candidate for Vice President to Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio is without question capable of that position. However, Rubio is a powerful and colorful contender for that job. He will outshine most other political figures, and that includes The President of the United States. His manner and personality outweigh and transcend most other politicos. He is wise beyond his years, and though a brief stint in politics, he nonetheless has the youth, ability and capacity to prevail with intrepid success. A President of the USA cannot appear as second fiddle, or in the back seat in the game of politics. He must be respected and considered “top man,” and therefore, a more quiescent, tranquil personality though equally knowledgeable, intelligent and capable to perform such duties
would be best suited for Vice President. A “conservative” Conservative! Someone who can step into the shadow of the President without disturbing the waters around him, and conversely be able to step forward in time of emergency. ###
Fred,
You said – “….several people have expressed concern (some have been adamant and angry) that Marco Rubio should not be selected as the Vice Presidential nominee because he would not be eligible to be President, if the need arose.”
Wrong again Fred. Rubio should not be chosen because he is ineligible for POTUS (which he is not), he should not be chosen because he is ineligible to be VPOTUS. The Twelfth Amendment states that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”.
According to Article I Section 8 Clause 10 Congress has been given power, “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” It is an historical fact that that our founders and framers referenced and highly regarded the Law of Nations so much that it was placed into our U.S. Constitution and thus empowered Congress to punish offences against the Law of Nations. In the Records of the Federal Convention New York 25 July 1787 our first Chief Justice, John Jay submitted to George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention what would become one of the Constitutional qualifications for Commander in Chief in stating, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & 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”. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. The Law of Nations provides the Constitutional definition of a natural born citizen, historical records reveal that Vattel’s work was quoted at the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, various State Constitutional Conventions, and was also referenced in a 1785 letter by John Jay regarding a diplomatic matter.
Furthermore, we have U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing Article II Section I with the ruling of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. pg. 167-68 (1875). “Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,‘ and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law (Law of Nations), with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens” (emphasis added).
It will also be necessary to note as part of historical record from June 2003 to Feb. 2008, Congress made 8 attempts to remove from Article II Section I the “natural born citizen” clause, both Republicans and Democrats. The Bill numbers and dates are as follows:
• HJR 59 June 11, 2003 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D)
• HJR 67 Sept 2, 2003 Sponsor: John Conyers (D)
• SB 2128 Feb 25, 2004 Sponsor: Don Nichols (R)
• HJR 104 Sept 15, 2004 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
• HJR 42 Jan 4, 2005 Sponsor: John Conyers (D)
• HJR 15 Feb 1, 2005 Sponsor: Dana Rohrabacher (R)
• HJR 42 April 14, 2005 Sponsor: Vic Snyder (D)
• SB 2678 Feb 28, 2008 Sponsor: Claire McCaskill (D) Co-sponsor: Barack Obama (D)
After being unable to remove or alter the natural born citizen clause Article II Section I Clause V from the U.S. Constitution, the Senate went forth with Senate Resolution 511 on April 10, 2008 sponsored by Claire McCaskill and with Barack Obama as a co-sponsor. This Resolution, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.RES.511 though non-binding addressed John McCain and the natural born citizen clause, concluded a natural born citizen “was born to American citizens”. Furthermore, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, 2008 Senator Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President. Mr. Chertoff replied “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally-a natural born American citizen.” “That is mine, too,” said Leahy. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SecurityOver/start/2279/stop/2370.
I vehemently disagree with your position on this matter Mr. Thompson. In order to be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ (of the U.S.), one must… a) be born in the U.S. (or in a territory of the U.S.)… and b) born to citizen ‘parents’ (‘Parents’ is plural as in… BOTH of them). So let me get this straight. We’ve got a criminal imposter occupying OUR White House and you’re wondering why the people are pissed off? You’re joking right? I used to have a great deal of respect for you Mr. Thompson, but it would appear that you’re as gutless as the next beltway political hack. You folks are a disgrace to this great nation and to the great men who drafted the document you swore to uphold. Traitors you are… the whole stinking bunch of you!
Fred Thompson,
I am sorely disappointed and flabbergasted to learn that you consider the very important topic of presidential eligibility “a bunch of foolishness” that only serves to mislead people.
The short essay you offered constitutes a trite ill-formed argument. In this era of open borders — in this era where a battle is being waged for the very soul of our republic — in an era where forces of divisive forces are run amok — in an era where our founding principles have been compromised by fascists, collectivists and communists at the highest levels — in an era where a foreign nation, Kenya, has declared our president their native son and who in his own words declared himself Kenyan-born prior to his bid for the presidency — how can you possibly conclude what you have here?
What you should have argued is that it is high time the Supremes settled this question once and for all and stop shirking their responsibility. As Justice Thomas indicated they have thus far evaded tackling head-on this all important constitutional question. The truth is you can only hazard a guess as to how the Court would rule. You can bet though, that if and when they take it up you will not hear either side of the argument describing it as a foolish exercise.
Badly done, Mr. Thompson. Badly done indeed.
[...] http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/ [...]
Well, good luck trying to talk any sense into the two-citizen parent Birthers. I am not just being mean to them. But, when someone seriously tries to trump a 1898 SCOTUS decision (WKA) with an out of context snippet from an 1875 Scotus case (Minor), you have to figure logic ain’t their strong suit.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
37th Congress 2nd Session House of Representatives 1862
Congressman,ABOLITIONIST,Judge Advocate Lincoln Assassination Trial,played lead role in impeachment of Andrew Johnson,”Architect of 14th Amendment”–JOHN BINGHAM SPEAKS AUTHORITATIVELY~
Who are natural born citizens?
ALL PERSONS BORN within the Republic, OF PARENTS OWING ALLEGIANCE TO NO OTHER SOVEREIGNTY, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizens…”
Somebody should tell Mr. Fred Thomson we won the American Revolutionary War. We are no longer natural born subjects to a sovereign, but natural born CITIZENS in a Constitutional Republic..
English common law doesn’t mention the word “citizen(s).” Contrary to Mr. Jefferson’s declaration, English common law most definitely did not see all men created equal. And certainly, English common law would never allow mere common natural born subjects access to the ruling class.
But through a Declaration of Independence, a Revolutionary war, and finally, a Constitution, we are no longer natural born subjects, but natural born Citizens, born equally, with access to the ruling class, ordained by self-evident, inalienable natural law.
ex animo
davidfarrar
And the South lost the Civil War, and now everyone born in this country is a citizen and eligible to be president.
I entirely agree with davidfarrar. Citizens and Subjects ARE different.
But are they different in every way?
Subjects put their pants on one leg at a time. Citizens put their pants on one leg at a time.
So, since they are not different in every way, what makes you think that they are different where the Natural Born definition is concerned?
Surely IF the writers of the Constitution had intended to make a switch from the place of birth to parents when they switched from subjects to citizens they would have told us. It would be an important thing to say, if it were true. I mean, there would have to be a letter or an article saying something like: “Now that we are citizens, let us make the requirement to be Natural Born much tougher. Let’s make it parents, one—no let’s got all the way–let’s make it two parents.” But, you know, there is nothing like that.
And Vattel’s book did not even have the word “Natural Born Citizen” in any English language translation until TEN years after the US Constitution was written. In other words, it is extremely unlikely that the writers were referring to Vattel, and highly likely that they were referring to the common law.
And how’s all that working out for you, David?
Any court agree with you yet?
I didn’t think so.
And SCOTUS is not going to take up the ridiculous petition filed by your “attorney” Taitz. If she in fact is even your attorney after dumping you like a bad habit.
So all those anchor babies are now eligable. Thanks fred from saving me from the embarssment of voting for you in 2008!
Not only are they born eligible, they are born citizens. That is the reason the term “anchor baby” exists in the first place.
The issue is with their parents, who are not citizens and eligible, not the children, who are.
Mr. Thompson, i want you to know that my respect for you is immense. I wish you were still in the Office.
In order to accept you and many others explanation that provisions of the 14th have any affect on the requirements stated in Article 2, one would have to deny the rules of legal construction. If the provisions spelled out in the 14th affected presidential requirements, it would have stated something like, “these articles in 14 revision hereby effect and change or modify the requirements as stated for natural born citizen as written in article 2. It does not.
Any law that changes, modifies, nullifies, alters, or otherwise effects a previous law must say so. Otherwise, how would we know? If the speed limit down your street was 45 miles per hour, then changed to 25 you would want to know that wouldn’t you? The speed limit sign on presidential requirements have not been modified and this country is reaping the devastation reeked by an un-American individual such as Obama. Obama IS the reason for natural born requirements in my view.
If we are to believe a narcissistic pathological liar such as Obama and his historical narrative, which I don’t, he is unqualified under the Constitution because his daddy, according to Obama was an alien. Setting that aside his momma when he was born had to be 19 years of age to pass her US Citizenship to her offspring. She was 18 according to records, so Obama needs to come up with some kind of bona- fides that he is even a US Citizen! Philip Berg said the same thing and for the same reasons back in 2008 when two law suite were filed over this that were ignored.
Aside from all that we this which is more important in my view. Sheriff Joe Arpaio have verified that the birth docs Obama has provided are real and very clear forgeries as is his draft registration card. He failed an E’Verify Check and is using a social security number from a guy born in 1890 who died in Hawaii. He is a common criminal and needs a congressional investigation NOW.
There are excellent reasons not to believe Sheriff Joe:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indicting-the-sheriff-joe-and-the-cold-case-posse/
JB Williams rebuttal: http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A390545&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
Publius Huldah article: http://obamaballotchallenge.com/the-whole-truth-and-nothing-but-the-truth-on-natural-born-citizen-article-ii
I like Fred a lot, and I was one of the ones who sent Fred a tweet about this. The new Egyptian premier’s kids were born here in the US. Does that mean they are NBC and eligible to run?
Fred, you need to read more of the history and study definitions extant when the Founders wrote the Constitution. Especially important is the Supreme Court decision in Minor vs Happersett.
Here is something I saw today for the first time. This definition was read into the Congressional record at the time of the 14th amendment. The concept of NBC was not treated in the 14th amendment as the meaning of NBC was already well-known and understood at the time. The 14th amendment is about giving slaves citizenship …period.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~rxsid/
It’s interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: “Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’”.
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
The Senate resolution simply tried to add McCain’s criteria for being an NBC, birth outside the USA to two citizen parents, to the existing and unchanged original criterion: Birth in the USA.
[...] Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility | by Mario Apuzzo, [...]
Lynch v Clark was a state court decision and has no binding or precedence in federal courts, especially on constitutional matters. The Wong King Ark (WKA) case did not address “natural born Citizenship” (NBC) either in the question asked to the court or in the legal holding of the court. While NBC was discussed in the arguments and dicta, the court did not hold that WKA was an NBC but only that he was a basic Citizen of the U.S. with the same rights as a natural born child of Citizens. The case that you Fred conveniently omit for a full discussion is the Minor v Happersett 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case which clearly defined what a NBC was, i.e., a person born in the country to parents who are citizens. Also the historical record shows that the founders and framers relied on natural law to justify the revolution and to frame the new federal constitution. And the leading and preeminent legal treatise on natural law widely read by the founders in the colonies, especially the 1775 edition, was Vattel’s “Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law” which in Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 19 defined the natural born citizens of a country as those born in the country to parents who are citizens. Also, a statutory “citizen at birth” under Title 8 Section 1401 creates Citizens at Birth, not natural born Citizens at Birth. The term natural born Citizen is not even mentioned in the statutory law. The legal term of art Citizen at Birth is not logically and legally identical to the legal term of art natural born Citizen. Both are types of citizens which are part of the whole set of Citizens of the United States. A statutory Citizen at Birth is a citizen made by law by the Congress and is thus really a naturalized citizen at birth under U.S. law and in no way is a natural born Citizen, since no law is required to grant Citizenship to a natural born Citizen who gains their Citizenship simply and solely via nature by the facts of their birth in the country to two U.S. citizen parents.
These comments are all very interesting- but- lets concentrate our energy on getting a change in the White House in the coming election. That is what concerns me most !!
I am disappointed in you Fred, come on we do not need what a thousand words you use above to make sense out of this rule, You usually simplify things , but alas you digress into the wordsmith game, no matter how many words you say(something that seems to carry weight in DC) It is a simple question with a simple answer. Two parents citizens ,Good to go, no two parents citizens NO GO! simple and clear. I and I am sure most Americans are SICK of all the made up debate over simple issues. Seems when someone gets elected they get an instant case of diarrhea of the mouth!
remember the KISS principal it will serve you well
Born American = eligible.
Simple and not stupid, unlike two citizen parent falsehoods.
Swiss Diplomat Emer de Vattel wrote the Law of Nations in 1758, our Founding Fathers adopted it in pertinent part with regard to the Natural Born Citizen clause. It says, a Natural Born Citizen is one born to parents who are both citizens, in the country.
Rubio is not Constitutionally Eligible, nor is Jindal, nor is Santorum, NOR IS PUTATIVE PRESIDENT OBAMA!
The real question here is why has Congress, the Supreme Court, and both major political parties (and the media) purposely ignored this crisis?!?
Further muddying the waters are the terms Native Born and Naturalized, etc. Which have no bearing upon the Natural Born Citizen clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution.
With all due respect to Mr. Thompson, whom I personally supported in his candidacy for President in 2008, you have it wrong.
Fred Thompson:
The Congressional Research Service document you use as a “reference document” to backstop your position is one that all of the 500-plus fools in the Legislative Branch have been tricked by ALSO.
That paper written by Jack Maskell is so full of holes and specious arguments that anyone using it as do you is guilty of non-thinking. In the case of sitting CongressCats that may be understandable but in the case of a private citizen attempting to weigh in on a matter of Constitutional law you whould educate yourself … and the CRS memo is not a solid starting point … try the Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett in 1875 which is in fact “stare decisis” on the matter rather that a paper paid for by taxpayer money of a governmental body chosen and staffed by political operatives.
“… We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789), and hence is qualified to be President:
“Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress can define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.
“Chet Arthur in ‘American Thinker’ quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.
“‘Human Events’ claims that anyone born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.
“Jake Walker at ‘Red State’ purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present. After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the HOUSE, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”…
“But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!
“The four writers don’t know what they are talking about.
“But I, will tell you the Truth, and prove it.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Publius/huldah110.htm
Here is the 1st question that must be asked. Are we trying to determine what NBC means to today’s politicians, or what it meant to those who put the requirement in the Constitution? I would think that true conservatives would be for the latter, however Fred clearly shows that is not the way he chooses to interpret it. Here is where he really goes off of the rails:
“Finally, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, which states, in part: “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.” Reading this together with Article 2 would indicate that the additional “natural born” requirement of Article 2 for a citizen to be eligible to be president meant that being “naturalized” would not suffice. He must be born here.”
He is suggesting, that to rightly understand the intent of the phrase added by the Founders, we need to consider the meaning of the 14th Amendment. The Founders knew nothing of the 14th. To suggest their intent would be framed by something not yet conceived is highly illogical. Furthermore, the words ‘natural born’ are found nowhere within the 14th Amendment. Moreover, the Minor case…which was heard after the passage of the 14th…clearly stated that the Constitution does not define NBC. In other words, the 14th does NOT define NBC.
So is original intent important or is it not? To Fred, the only thing that seems important is whether current judges would likely find Rubio to be ineligible. I agree they would probably say he is NBC…but does that make them right? Do we the people still not have power to influence opinions through exertion of political will?
If we disagree with original intent, then we should pass an Amendment redefining NBC to agree with current views. But let’s not do it with revisionism.
Another point worth making: If Natural born citizen means the same thing as citizen from birth or born citizen, then what function does the term ‘natural’ serve in that phrase? The founders obviously weren’t precluding C-Section babies from being POTUS. I’m not sure of the case, maybe Marbury vs. Madison, but the SCOTUS has stated that you can’t interpret the Constitution in any way that renders words meaningless. Claiming that NBC is the same as born citizen renders the word ‘Natural’ totally without meaning. And that word has a lot of subtext.
Does it not seem logical that it was a reference to Natural Law…something with which the Founders were very familiar. “We hold these truths to be self-evident”. “All people are bestowed by God with certain unalienable rights..” Are these statements of English Common Law or statements of Natural Law? The answer is clear.
And what would Natural Law say in regards to whom is a citizen? To be a tiger, you must be born of two tigers. If you are born of one tiger and one lion, you are a liger. Natural law is clean and simplistic. Man-made law is convoluted and messy. Under Natural Law, to be a citizen, you must be born of two citizens.
Now the founders didn’t limit standard citizenship to the terms of natural law. They left open the possibility for Congress to define citizenship as they pleased. Congress did just that with the 14th Amendment. They only placed this strict requirement on the President and Vice President.
Obviously it wasn’t even clear whether those born in the US to non-citizens were citizens at all before the Wong Kim Ark decision. So to suggest that the Founders thought being born here alone made you ‘natural born’, is extremely disingenuous.
They let statutory law govern who was a citizen, and left God’s law (Natural Law) as the ultimate means of securing allegiance to the US, as the standard for POTUS. What could make more sense than that?
“Does it not seem logical that it was a reference to Natural Law”
Actually the term “natural born Citizen” is derived from the English legal term “natural born subject”. In fact, the two terms were used interchangeably by the Founders. For example, the Massachusetts Naturalization Acts from 1785 to 1791 used both terms in the exact same way with the exact same meaning.
For example,
1785
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH. …shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
1787
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS. …,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, priviledges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
1787
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN. …shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
1787
“AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED. …shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
Fred, Nice trial balloon to see how we Constitutional Conservative, Tea Party members would react! We believe in following the Constitution so Rubio and Governor Jindal are not eligible to become President! It would be very useful if you pursued Speaker Boehner to form an investigative committee in the Judiciary Committee, under Chairman, Lamar Smith to demonstrate Obama’s illegality and remove him from office! For your information, Obama is not going to leave office even when he loses the election! His supporters, George Soros, the Russian KGB, the Democratic Socialists of America (Communist Party USA), the communist leaning unions and the Saudi Arabian Monarchy are not going to allow Obama to leave the office. They are at the peak of their power and are lawless. “The law only stops the law abiding,” Rush Limbaugh.
Obama and Holder are going to make legal challenges of the election results in numerous states ala, Gore v. Bush, 2000. The FINAL election results will be delayed well beyond January 20, 2012 and Romney will not be able to take office. Chaos will result when Obama continues to make lawless moves!!
First of all NBC is just that, both parents have to be NBC before you are eligible. The Constitution is a legal document and as such you would rely on a law dictionary for meanings of words, etc. Law is something that is very detailed and has to have absolutes or if not anything goes. Law Dictionaries, such as the “Black Law Dictionary” provide a good start. Also, you have to consider the resources of when the document, e.g., Constitution was written. This is the problem we have today. Fluid meanings provide whatever results you wish to have. Personally, I do not think it is not too much to demand that the people who we elect have had the opportunity to have been given the opportunity to prove their alliance.
PresBO is not eligible. His Daddy was a non-citizen! The 14th amendment change the status of Slaves to “People” , otherwise, legally, they would still have been property, i.e., assets. Dam, those pesky lawyers. I dare say that lawyers have not learned Constitutional law for quite some time. Nor have the citizens. We are no longer under the “Rule of Law”, but the “Rule of Men” .
It is about time you people actually study your history instead of making thinks up. The Fed Gov is no longer Constitutional or Romans 13 Compliant and as such, we who do have the Constitution as are birth right are under no obligation to support it. It is time for the Fed Govt to go away. It is broken and cannot be fixed…… unless we can find leaders who have the balls to stand up for our God Given rights….if not . It is time to execute the first law of the land…. when the Govt no longer is for “WE THE PEOPLE”, it is time to move on!
In other words. THis article is bull shit!
I like Fred Thompson, but unfortunately, him the current GOP party, the last hope, are not able to come to grips with the real issues or to defend our Constitution.
And what of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802 and 1855? They all treated those born on US soil to aliens as aliens themselves. How can you, with a clear conscience, try and suggest that the Founders thought that someone merely born here to aliens could somehow qualify for what they considered the more strict definition of citizenship required for POTUS eligibility?
Actually, you don’t claim that because you know better. You simply claim that this isn’t a battle that can be won in today’s political climate and beg us to forsake our roots for the sake of political correctness. Sad.
None of this changed until the 14th, and that Act in no way mentions ‘natural born’.
To Garrett;
Finally…!!!
A Citizen that looks to the U.S. Law in order to contrue the correct circumstances to determine those who are or are not “natural born Citizens” as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution and Founding Generation….!!!!
Hozanna, Hozanna,…….Amen, Patriot …!!!
Incorrect. Take 1790 and 1795, those were about *naturalizaktion* and do not say anything about being *born* on American soil. Try to read the things first, next time.
Obama’s father was Kenyan, a citizen of Great Britain; he never became a U.S. citizen.
At birth Obama II was born a citizen of Great Britain (thanks to his father) if he was born in the U.S. he was also born a citizen of the U.S., making him at birth a Dual National.
The Framers inserted the ‘natural born citizen’ clause into the Constitution because they understood persons with divided allegiance could be subject to foreign influence and did not want such a person becoming President.
The U.S. Dept of State defines a Dual National as having divided allegiance
Fred,
Why the blacklist on Mario Apuzzo’s comment? It seems you’ve been caught, sir.
Whew! Great. I’m glad to see it posted now. Sorry for jumping the gun.
Its just that I am floored by Fred’s take on this. Someone mentioned this post of Fred’s as a “Trial” balloon to see how we would react to Rubio.
I don’t know. It just seems that every time I start to really respect a politician, they end up not what I thought they were.
Fred: C’mon. You seriously expect us to accept this post as what you REALLY believe and know to be true? I just don’t buy it.
I guess I would expect a follow up post by Fred in response to at least what Mario Apuzzo has laid out. I’m all ears and would love to see what Fred’s response is point by point. If we get that here, then I think Fred can at least be said to putting forth a valuable debate. Until then, I’m unsure of Fred’s motivations here, and that concerns me.
Precisely on point, David.
The ball’s in Mr. Thompson’s court now. We can only hope he does the honorable thing.. The issue is far too serious to duck.
Fred did the honorable thing- he wrote out a good article explaining who is a natural born citizen and his view is the concensus legal and popular opinion.
Good job Fred.
There’s that pesky word “consensus” again. Isn’t that how the left justified man-made global warming?!?! Consensus cuts both ways.
Only thoughtful, analytical research and debate can settle this seminal issue.
jdelaney:
You said: “Only thoughtful, analytical research and debate can settle this seminal issue.”
Uh, that was done in 1898 by these fellows we call the U.S. Supreme Court. The case was called Wong Kim Ark. The SCOTUS wrote a 19,464 (more or less) word decision and went back to Merry Olde England to get the meaning of “natural born” and then they brought it across the ocean to America and told us that the 14th Amendment affirmed the ancient right of natural born citizenship by birth within the country, regardless of the citizenship of the parents — with only 2 exceptions, those born of foreign diplomats or invading soldiers.
This decision was affirmed again in 2009 by the Ankeny court, and a half dozen or more other courts in 2012. Not to mention well-researched Congressional memos and other writings, including mine.
Birthers don’t need any more research and debate – - – What Birthers really need is mental health therapy, perhaps in-patient treatment, and some meds like Haldol to help them through their psychotic breaks with reality. Because like Mark Levin said, Birthers are not rational people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky,
Regurgitatng the same old worn-out, specious claptrap, I see. Again, I said “thoughtful, analytical” reasearch. Let me add “objective” as well.
Frankly, I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to set you straight. Too wearying and tedious. I would simply ask that you please take the time to read Mario Apuzzo’s research on the subject. If that alone doesn’t occasion genuine doubts regarding your “opinion”, then I would have to conclude that you are wilfully incapable of objectivity and that, therefore, your painfully flawed commentary on this subject is unworthy of any serious attention.
Hi jdelaney3!!!
You said:
“Frankly, I’ve neither the time nor the inclination to set you straight. Too wearying and tedious.”
Let me translate that for you:
“OMG!!! Not Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter!!! Run, Birthers!!! Hide!!! She really knows her stuff and the legal cases and she will clobber us all WITH LOGIC!!! Eeeeee!!!”
And for what it is worth, I do read Mario’s stuff. His 200 page brief was not bad if you read it as an argument for what the law should be. But if you read it as a brief for what the law actually is, then it really reeks.
There is nothing to stop you Birthers from arguing for changing the law to citizenship thru parenthood, but for some unknown reason you guys keep trying to pretend the law isn’t what it is, and blood citizenship is already the law on this subject.
There must be something mental going on with you all.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Mario’s opinions are well known. But they are only opinions. The US Supreme Court has ruled in Wong Kim Ark that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and refers to the place of birth. Mario disagrees, well tough, in the USA it is the rulings of the US Supreme Court that are the final say on the law.
Where did Wong Kim Ark say the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and refers to the place of birth?
As Leo Donofrio, Esq pointed out:
Click here for source.
ex animo
davidfarrar
In approximately 5 pages of the opinion.
Try reading it sometime.
Frank Bolivar is right, and cogent too.
Still, for your convenience, here again are the actual words:
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
That says that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law (hence, not from Vattel). And it says that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth (hence not the parents), and it says that every child born in the USA is Natural Born except for the children of foreign diplomats. And it says that the same rule applied in Britain, and in the 13 colonies and in the early states, AND UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
The meaning of legal terms are settled by the US Supreme Court, which has already settled the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case. The exact quotation already has been posted on this site. It says that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel, who was not even translated into English to include the term Natural Born Citizen until ten years after the US Constitution). And the Wong Kim Ark decision stated that the meaning of NBC refers to the place of birth (not the parents) and that every child born in the USA is Natural Born, except for the children of foreign diplomats.
That is the law, and five state courts and one federal court ruling only on challenges to Obama have recognized it, and none has ruled the way that birthers want. They are dreaming that the US Supreme Court will rule any differently. It won’t. It will turn down the appeal of the Georgia case, as it has turned down every birther case so far. And when it does, crazy birthers can scream that the court is “treasonous”, as they can about Senator Thompson (and Senators Graham and Hatch, too, and Jeb Bush and Giuliani, who recommended Rubio as VP, and former Attorney General Meese) but none of them are treasonous. They all recognize the simple fact that the meaning of Natural Born citizen really does come from the common law and really does refer to the place of birth.
Typo correction to my prior comment. The following is the correction citation of Vattel on the subject of who is a natural born Citizen of a country. It was Vol.1 Chapt 19 Section 212 instead of Section 19 as I incorrectly typed in my prior post. This is the corrected sentence.
“And the leading and preeminent legal treatise on natural law widely read by the founders in the colonies, especially the 1775 edition, was Vattel’s “Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law” which in Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212 defined the natural born citizens of a country as those born in the country to parents who are citizens.”
The very words in our Constitution disprove your theory Fred: the framers made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen. For your theory to be correct, the term “citizen” really means naturalized citizen and the word “natural born citizen” really means citizen (as defined in the 14th Amendment).
The trouble with that is found in the fact that the fear expressed by the framers (someone with loyalties to another nation could might become president) is automatically nullified. And we know that isn’t the case, because the framers frequently voiced that very concern.
In your scenerio, the King of England could’ve sent his pregnant mistress to the US and her child (born on US soil) would’ve been a “natural born citizen.”
That is preposterous and in direct conflict with the thoughts expressed by the very men who authored that clause.
As previously mentioned, the SCOTUS has defined “natural born citizen” quite distinctly (Minor vs Happersatt). That decision tossed out the argument that you’ve made (regarding the 14th Amendment). Mere dictum? No, the unanamous decision clearly depended upon that definition as a means of denying the 14th Amendment claim.
Furthermore, the father of the 14th Amendment testified (in Congress) that the intent (of the 14th Amendment) had no bearing on the natural born citizen requirement. (I’d find the quote, but I’m certain you can find it too).
I might add that according to his stated intent, the 14th Amendment does not allow for citizenship merely on the basis of being born on US soil. ‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ is our clue here – as someone with loyalty to another nation is not subject to our jurisdiction.
As a conservative, I would hope that original intent is everything to you. Without it, our supreme law is nothing other than a bunch of words to be defined as each group (in power) decides. That alters the Constitution completely meaningless – and that is a very dangerous path to tread.
Lastly, it doesn’t matter if everyone in the entire US believed the term “natural born citizen” actually meant “citizen.” The Constitution is not a matter of a popularity contest – it is our supreme law. What matters is the intent of the law when written/ratified, and that is blatantly obvious: a person born of citizen parents, on US soil. All other definitions fail the test of standing up to the framer’s own words… and deeds.
Unless Senator Rubio is 223 years of age, he is not eligible for the office of president or vice president. Neither is the fraud currently residing in the people’s house.
“In your scenerio, the King of England could’ve sent his pregnant mistress to the US and her child (born on US soil) would’ve been a “natural born citizen.””
Since a King is probably a diplomat, probably not. But say that he was. That would be just one more in the 300 million who are eligible. Do we have the right to vote for (or AGAINST) the King of England’s US-born child? Of course we do.
US born criminals are also eligible. It is simply an arbitrary rule. Do we have to vote for them? Obviously not.
Who are excluded from eligibility? Well, obviously, people who were born overseas and naturalized are excluded. But those of us who were born here are INCLUDED.
Fred,
I’m sorry, but you are flat wrong on this one, and if you have relied on the guidance of the Congressional Research Service for your arguments, you’ve been duped.
I wonder if you are aware of this little bit or recorded history?
Alexander Hamilton’s original draft of the Constitution used this language:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”.
John Jay was not satisfied with this language and felt that a ‘stronger check’ was needed with regard to the office of President and Commander-In-Chief of the Republic’s Armed forces, and so he drafted a letter to George Washington (dated 25 July 1787), where he said:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”.
Of course, we then ended up with the “natural born Citizen” language actually embodied into the document (as adopted 17 September 1787)!
From this sequence of events and these historical facts there can be no doubt that in the minds of the Framers the terms “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” could not possibly have meant the same thing?
If they did have the same meaning, there would have been no need for Hamilton’s language to have been replaced.
And in addition, this cannot be overlooked either
What is of the utmost importance, and what really matters here is what the term “natural born Citizen” meant to the Framers, NOT what some court decided it should mean 50, 100, or 200 years later. The only body legally qualified to change the Constitution is the people of the United States through the amendment process. The only authority that ANY court really has in this matter is to try to decide what the Framers had in mind by that term, NOT what the term does or should mean at a time long afterwards.
When two or more parties sign a contract the agreement is based upon the meaning of the words and phrases in effect at the time the contract was signed. If one or more words or phrases in it undergo a change in definition at a later time, the original agreement is not modified or altered by this fact, unless of course the parties go back and amend the original contract to update it.
It seems to me that with this topic, simple rules of logic are simply being ignored or dismissed, all for the sake of political opportunism, and it ‘s not limited to just one side. The Republicans seem every bit as willing to participate in this charade as the Democrats..
Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal all have the same issue, and are not qualified to be President regardless of their place of birth. Case closed, end of story!
John Jay, a lawyer and justice, was using the Natural Born definition that he was familiar with, the one from the common law. If you like, I can show long quotations (really too long to put here) in which Jay, Ben Franklin and John Adams in draft treaties with Britain used Natural Born Citizen as equivalent to Natural Born Subject. And in the common law a Natural Born Subject was one who simply was born in the country, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.
In any case, John Jay, the main writer of the first Constitution of the State of New York, who inserted the common law into that document, was referring to the common law meaning of Natural Born.
@truthseeker
Your narrative about Alexander Hamilton and John Jay is nice except that it is not accurate. The draft plan submitted by Hamilton on June 18th, 1787 did not contain the presidential eligiblity requirement of “born a citizen of the United States”. In fact, there are no requirements for President in his plan because the plan did not have a President, it had a Governour who served as for life.
John Jay was not at the Constitutional Convention and the proceedings were secret so he did not know what requirements might be added.
At the end of the Convention, Alexander Hamilton gave James Madison a copy of a draft constitution, that was the draft that had the “born a citizen of the United States” phrase. That draft was not voted on nor even seen by the Convention delegates by the Convention.
No, he is not eligible, and we do not need him as VP.
[...] RNC effort to redefine Natural Born Citizen, clearing Rubio for the GOP ticket, once respected Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson enters the fray. Thompson wastes no time regurgitating the same lies that have protected Barack [...]
Fred,
You’ve blown it big time.
Us conservatives are now seeing another side to you
The willfull ignorance exhibited, the errant cherry-picking by many like Mr. Thompson on the right regarding NBC is mind-blowing. I honestly don’t understand why.
I pray that, at the very least, before he taps Rubio or Jindal as his VP that Romney seeks an advisory opinion from SCOTUS on their eligibility to serve in that capacity, failing which I will be–on principle alone–compelled to stay home from the polls on November 6th. Such a choice would be painful, indeed.
I just hope that Mr. Thompson takes the time to study this issue further. He will discover some very legitimate concerns regarding both Obama’s and Rubio’s eligibility. Mr. Apuzzo’s analysis is a good start for Mr. Thompson’s research.
The US Supreme Court does not give advisory opinions. However, the US Supreme Court did rule in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.
Apuzzo’s arguments have been declared “without merit” in court. Sorry…
You will not be alone, I will also stay home. I will not be hypocritical by complaining about Obama being a constitutionally ineligible and then turn around and vote for a Republican with a constitutionally ineligible running mate.
The Constitution has been twisted and re-defined in terrible and incorrect ways. Just because the Supreme Court has incorrectly interpreted it and have made erroneous decisions does not make something true. They came down on the side of slavery, afterall. Today we know that slavery is wrong. They have come down on the side of abortion and have even claimed that there is a Constitutional right to it! Really? This is obviously wrong to any moral person.
I’m afraid your argument doesn’t really hold much water. Just because many or most people now believe that anyone born here even someone whose child was born here while its parent was on vacation from China is a citizen and could become president doesn’t these people correct. In fact, since a book by Vattel was asked for while framing the Constitution and since Vattel held the current “minority” view that one had to be born in the US of US citizen parents, I come down on that definition. These Revolutionaries were not crazy about immitating everything that Britian did and it makes more sense that they would follow Vattel and not “English common law” in this case. My two cents.
Rather than make a lot of comments and to go tit-for-tat with the Obama denialist crowd, I will by reference make the argument, and move on to more productive activities.
Mr. Woodman has a 7-part series exposing the two-citizen parent theory as a misrepresentation of history. It starts here:
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/07/the-historical-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen-part-1-before-the-constitution-up-to-1787/
Other objections raised to Obama’s citizenship are found in my articles here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/debunk
Dr. Conspiracy is the PAID OBOT for the Radical Left. He has a following of those he can hoodwink with his blurring of information on anything related to Obama. He is no doctor and his moniker is as fictitious as his articles. Read it as Dr. Con – as his is a con game that is built upon lies and deception. He writes for the minority …the Marxist, socialist, and communist crowd. He is one of those that wants to transform our American into whatever version they envision. Anyone that disagrees with their interpretation or ideas is ridiculed by the others that frequent his blog. He and his minions attack others on conservative blogs, not with factual information, but in line with Alinsky tactics. He is one of those that goes after anyone who files a lawsuit to get the real answers from Obama, and he or his followers make sure they are in attendance to cause mayhem. Anything written by them should be taken with less than a grain of salt. He and other Obots are what we have had to put up with not vice versa.
Bridgette,
Good call! Dr. Conspiracy is Dr. OBOT. He is an enabler for Barry Soetoro alias in thief Barry Obama. He works with William Bryan aka Fogbow disbarred CA attorney who helps carry the water for Barry and the boys. Part of the crowd who caused Darren Huff and Walt Fitzpatrick III to be labeled as “sovereign citizens” and falsely charged and had them incarcerated by corrupted law enforcement. Really anybody else who stands for the US Constitution and blood bought liberty are labeled as “terrorists”. The lies will eventually catch up to these felons and righteous judgment and justice will be meted out.
“We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts–not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution” Abraham Lincoln
I trust Professor Rice of Notre Dame, Herb Titus of Harvard, the Boston Globe and Chicago Legal Tribune over John Woodman.
I’ve debated Woodman and he is very emotional and often illogical.
I see one the leading propaganda peddlers for the Obots – those who disguise themselves under the label anti-Birthers – is here spewings his blatant lies and 1/2 truths. Absorb this in your cultural marxist-critical theory mind: Everything isn’t about your beloved Obama. This is 200 years before your Hero. This is about getting our American history correct and the true intentions of our Founding Fathers. When your loyal flock on that propaganda site you call a blog respond to me saying they are communist & support socialism nothing else is necessary to understand what you’re all about – it’s in your archives, you can’t deny it.
As far as faux-conservative John Woodman, I’ve already pointed out to him on his blog a number of times the lies he tells in his “Plan” to subvert the truth about our American founding period. Even grade schoolers, where they are still being taught our American history, can spot the lies. As an example in that Part 1 you posted: Woodman takes a proposal [French document] sent by the Minister of France in the summer [July] of 1781, and claims that was 5 years after the American Revolution. Yorktown hadn’t been fought yet and there were another dozen battles to go after that. [Grade schoolers, did ya catch that one?] Woodman’s purpose for using the French Minister’s proposal is based on 1 word used [subject] so he can make the claim it was the “official position” of the Continental Congress in 1781 that the American people were still “subjects” – it’s an absolute lie. That proposal was part of the ongoing Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between The United States and France that started in February of 1778 of which there were 33 separate articles. In some of the articles the French call the American people subjects and in others they call them citizens. At the time the Americans were in no position to split-hairs with the French over a word the French used in a proposal. Also, according to Yale’s Avalon Project on “Hunter Miller’s Notes”, when the American government got the final signed copies of the articles back from France, someone in the Continental Congress was crossing out ‘subject” and writing in “citizen”. All the other treaties during that period, such as with Prussia and Morocco, recognized American citizens and the other country’s subjects. Woodman and his Flock next try to use Vermont as proof for “subject”. Only one problem, Vermont didn’t join the USA till 1791 which means the new state never had standing in the Continental Congress. But these cultural marxist will try anything to subvert the truth.
The historical records show that the last time the “official position” of the Continental Congress was “subject” was in the Articles of Association of 1774. During that time the founders/framers were still appealing to the British Parliment for the same rights that their British brethern/common kindred had. In 1775, the founders through Franklin via Charles Dumas in Holland, were given a special edition of Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations specifically edited by Dumas for what he called “the American situation” In December 1775, Franklin sends a “Thank You Letter” to Dumas writing, “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,…….. 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.” Less than 6 months later the “Committee of Five” consisting of Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams crossed out “subject” and wrote in “citizen” in the Declaration of Independence. After a final editing of the Declaration by the Continental Congress the term “citizen” stayed and became the “official postion” of our founding American government. Both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution use the term, and both those documents refer back to the Declaration as the start of independence.
I have alot more from their archives to show how these 2 have been operating. The above is only a small sampling from Part 1 of Woodman & Dr. Conspiracy’s plan to help along and be a part of the cultural marxists with their agenda for America.
I see that one of he more belligerent Birthers is making an appearance to spread falsehoods. Keep on wasting time.
I like Fred, but he is dead wrong on this issue. Under his statement “citizen’ and “natural born Citizen” are the same terms. They ARE NOT. The founders would not have put the phrase “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution ONLY in Article II Sec1 Clause 5 for eligibility to be POTUS if the terms meant the same thing. Amendment XIV ONLY deals with being a citizen if you were born here. People who become citizens under the 14th Amendment are born dual citizens, with allegiance to the US AND the country of their parents, who are illegal aliens or foreigners. Under Fred’s definition a Chinese Communist mother who came here on a designer birthing trip, the sole purpose to collect American citizenship for her little Communist, in 1977 and returned to China for the child to be turned into a proper and sanctioned “red diaper baby”. In 1998 when her good little Communist comes of age, she returns to the US and resides for 14 years and her trained Commie runs for POTUS in the 2012 election at the age of 35. Under Fred’s interpretation a Communist can become POTUS and with the current ideological Marxist faux POTUS, there is already one in the White House. He slithered in because NO ONE declared him ineligible as a NON “natural born Citizen” when the DNC’s OCON (Official Certification of Nomination) were submitted from each state with the phrase “Constitutionally eligible” removed. Dirty D-Rat maneuvers and the Republicans according to Fred are willing to play the same game with Rubio and Jindahl…not sure about Haley. When she ran for Gov. of my state the issue came up and her campaign confirmed that her parents were both naturalized American citizens when she was born, but in this age of government subterfuge for their candidates I don’t believe squat that I can’t confirm.
Great column, Senator..
The court precedent is clear..
And as I told someone when the issue came up:
“if Marco Rubio suddenly needed his birth certificate––
and didn’t have a copy––Where would he go to get it??
TALLAHASSEE, FL..THAT’S WHERE!!
Blessings..
Your old “next-door neighbor” in Park Green, Hillsboro Rd.
Jerry Minshall
WSM & WWTN RADIO
Fred is of course correct.
Exactly what I was taught by my very conservative middle school teacher.
Never heard of the two citizen parent nonsense until Obama was elected.
So if ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ are the same thing – which is what you believe, why then did the founders distinguish between the two? What’s the difference in the constitution? Oh, and we all know the founders would have no problem with a Brit being president – after all they just fought a war so they could be sure of that.
Citizens refers to all citizens. In the US, a citizen is either born (natural born citizen) or naturalized. Both are citizens, the only distinction as far as rights being that naturalized citizens cannot be president or vice president.
Kanbun, every American citizen is either a “Natural Born Citizen”- a citizen by birth- or a “naturalized citizen”.
Very Simple to me.
I shouldn’t be amazed at the sheer volume of Birthers who think their “feelings” about an issue are a substitute for “law” about an issue, but I am. They are simply delusional.
Assuming most people at this website think abortion is morally wrong, are there any here who are so delusional as to think that abortion is illegal??? Yet, that is the same thing mental and logical mistake the Birthers make. They confuse their feelings about NBC, with the actual law on the subject, and end up drooling and burbling like maniacs. Large numbers of otherwise rational and intelligent people have become sooo crazy that they ignore the clear law for over 200 years, and take to the Internets babbling in support of some Imaginary Two-Citizen Parents Law.
How sad. I bet Fred Thompson and his staff are sitting back and wondering if there is something in the water which is driving people mad.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Of course, you can back up what you say – right? The law for over 200 years? You mean that which you spin. You are the one that chooses to ignore the law. You don’t give a damn about the constitution, you are protecting one man. One man. He’s so great that you throw the founders’ vision under the bus because of your ideology and your delusion with one man. Obama is a bum, a secret, and a fraud. And because of him, you dishonor the founders and the constitution.
The founders vision was based on the common law, which is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers. And in the common law the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Kanbun:
Of course I can back up what I say. The NBC issue is actually very simple to understand for people who don’t have some hidden agenda or underlying comprehension issues. Here is a real short recap of the law:
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/a-place-to-get-the-really-right-answers-about-natural-born-citizenship/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter;
As certain as you seem to be of the FACTs you suggest I challenge you to look to the 1790 / ’98 Acts of the Congress, as promulgated under the authority of the ACTUAL Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, and investigate, parse and construe what the words of the Acts say and then what those words require as they would affect and effect the REQUIREMENT expressed by the Constitution that there would be natural born Citizens with the passing of the Founding Generation that would hold the EXCLUSIVE Right of eligibility to the Executive Office.
The FACTs of the U.S. Law contradicts the ‘notion’ that the English Common Law interpretations of the British Queen Anne Statutes has any bearing on the subject of U.S. Citizenship post adoption of the Constitution.
slcraig:
Uh, the problem is that you are referring, I think, to Naturalization Acts. The problem is that these acts DO NOT APPLY to people born INSIDE the United States. If you doubt me, read Wong Kim Ark, Section IV., more thoroughly, to wit:
Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.
If you need links, or further info please let me know. Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger. This issue underlies a large part of Mr. J.B. Williams’ confusion about Naturalization Statutes.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Someone named Squeeky Fromm is calling US crazy. HAHAHA. That is a good one.
Hi Garret!!!
Sooo, you found your way here, too. I think all you Birthers have overwhelmed Sen. Thompson with your blatant refusal to recognize REALITY But you haven’t overwhelmed me. I am still there slugging away.
Oh, have you been following The Birther Olympic updates???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hey Squeky Fromm,
Abortion is murder! It’s innocent life. Let’s just suck the brains out of an innocent life and call that life a fetus to placate your already seared conscience and hardened heart. Your life when it first was conceived is no different than the 60,000,000 babies that have been murdered. Is your life that much more significant than theirs? I didn’t think so. You are just as important to the LORD as those innocent lives.
Fred Thompson is absolutely wrong and he knows it. Don’t be fooled, learn the facts!
“The usurper Obama is not eligible for multiple reasons including:
1. Failure to be a “natural born citizen” as required by Article 2, Section 1.
2. Being born a British citizen pursuant to British Nationality Act of 1948.
3. Law enforcement investigators have concluded his birth certificate is fraudulent, which along with other identity anomalies i.e., suspected fraudulent selective service registration, suspected fraudulent social security number(s) and multiple aliases, very likely means Obama is not even a U.S. citizen!
The most authoritative source for the meaning of a “natural born citizen” as one born in U.S. of U.S. citizen parents (plural), is in fact the Constitution. The meaning of a natural born citizen is further confirmed by American history, the Founders, Congress and the Supreme Court.”[1]
1. http://www.obamabirthcertificate.net “Summary of Obama’s Ineligibility” http://www.obamabirthcertificate.net/2012/07/summary-of-obamas-ineligibility.html (July 2012)
Oh, a while back I wrote a poem of healing, for all the Birthers. :
Die Scheisskopfen
by Squeeky Fromm,
Girl Reporter
How oft I wish when I have heard
Some Birther wax moronic,
That for the cranium they made
A cleansing High Colonic.
Perhaps some sort of nasal spray,
With laxative included?
To roto-rooter out their brains
And leave them less deluded.
Or maybe take a Neti Pot
With crevice tool extending?
And they could name it “Nutty Pot”
And seek the “Patent Pending.”
There surely has to be a way
To sanitize gray matter.
And flush out Minor Happersett
With other Birther patter.
The Bi-polars and Borderlines,
We treat throughout the Nation.
But did we under-rate the risks
From Mental Constipation?
And so to those with Poop for Brains,
Hold on, a cure’s a-borning!
Or better yet, just let it go!
But first, give us a warning!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Note. Scheisskopfen. Pigdin German for poopie-heads. “Die” is the German article “the” for plural nouns.
Sqeeky,
Snarky, puerile and unhelpful. You did absolutely nothing to advance this otherwise serious discussion. Get dressed, go outside, and breathe some fresh air.
jdelaney3:
I disagree that my comment did nothing to advance this discussion. In fact, noting the proposition that Birthers are full of crap and irrational, has been noted by other people, including one named Mark Levin, on September 28, 2011, to wit:
“I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . .got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that. ”
Mark Levin
Sept. 28, 2011
Now, what I did was to say it in a more gentle and creative way, poetically, so as to be less offensive than Mr. Levin. But, in the end, what we both said lies at the root of Birtherism – CRAP CRAP CRAP.
This two citizen parent nonsense is pure imaginary invented law and the fact that otherwise rational conservatives would actually agree with it, is disturbing. I have written at length about the grossly idiotic legal reasoning, the logical fallacies, and the sheer delusional nature of the Birthers.
Sooo, what you call “snarky” and “childish”, I simply call one more creative attempt to break through the numb-skullery exhibited by the Birthers. I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but the simple fact is, Birthers are mentally ill. You guys have been playing in Subjective Reality Land too long, and it has rubbed off on you. Logic and reason are of limited value when trying to discuss legal issues with delusional people. Here is a more in depth analysis:
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/cacophony-fantastique-the-birther-idee-fixe/
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
See http://gadsdendispatch.com/?p=1436
Marco Rubio Is Not Constitutionally Eligible To Be President Or Vice President
Attorney Larry Klayman shed light on this phrase, “natural born citizen”, and where it comes from during the FL Eligibility hearing. Natural born citizen seems to have been developed and defined by Emerich de Vattel, in his 1758 book, “The Law of Nations: or, Principles of the Natural Law Applicable to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”. Vattel’s work was read by the founders, including Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Both men were delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787.
Short answer – No.
Larry Klayman and Voeltz lost that case.
Senator Thompson,
I am a huge fan of your personal and political legacy, but in the instance of your understanding of presidential eligibility you are sadly wrong. If you were to take the time you would see that our founders were leery of foreign influence (John Jay’s letter to Gen Washington), the prevalent philosophy of our founders regarding naturalism (Emer de Vattel), the record of those that have held the office (only Arthur and Obama as anomalous), and the highest court’s reflection on Art II presidential eligibility (Minor v Happersett).
As an active duty Soldier, you and I share something. We both swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same”. Please note it is not enough to defend but actually bear true faith. In this regard, you have failed utterly I am sorry to say. Please examine this matter in depth and come back with an educated opinion.
NO English-language translation of Vattel included the words “Natural Born Citizen” until ten years after the Constitution was written. In contrast, the term Natural Born had been used in the common law for three hundred years before the Constitution was written, and many of the writers of the US Constitution used it, and they always used it the way that it was used in the common law, to refer to the place of birth. Vattel is not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is referred to about twenty times.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
NOT ELIGIBLE
G. Miller is correct in his citing of the Minor v Happerset case of 1875. I am 67 years old and it was always the definition of this case that defined the meaning of “Natural Born” citizen. The whole problem that we are facing today is that our political system has become entirely corrupt to the point that today, our politicians, lawyers, judges and justices all interpret the Constitution to fit their own particular desires. Our Constitution will become totally irrelevant if we sit back and allow Romney to win with Rubio as his running mate, and if that happens, there will be no more United States of America. Ask yourselves why none of the Republican members of Congress have lifted so much as finger when it comes to Obama’s obvious constitutional ineligibility to be president. It is because both the Republicans and Democrats have morphed into one and the Republicans want to and have planned, for some time, to run an ineligible candidate of their own. it is about time we all wake up and realize that our own government has been playing us for many many years.
Most Rev.
Sorry, but you are singing out of the wrong page of the hymn book. Minor v. Happersett left the issue open, as is evident from reading the language and from what the Ankeny Court said in 2009:
“In Minor, written only six years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Court observed that:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Id. at 167-168. Thus, the Court left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.12″
Now, if you are still struggling with “for the purposes of this case, it is NOT necessary to solve these doubts” , then perhaps you should consider what the REAL WORLD would have looked like from 1874 on if you were correct – - – and why it doesn’t look that way:
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/the-alternate-reality-universe-of-leo-donofrio-a-white-paper/
As Johnny Cash said – - – Meditate on it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
This extensive commentary, most of which is thoughtful and often authoritative, underscores how painfully legitimate this constitutional issue really is to the nation.On that basis alone, Romney would do well to recognize the serioiusness and divisiveness of this seminal issue and avoid the inevitable political fallout by NOT tapping either Rubio or Jindal as VP. As said, I will stay home from the polls in November if Rubio is tapped. It’s a matter of honoring my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. As long as there is serious doubt as to Rubio’s eligibility–and there clearly is–I, like countless others, will not risk violating our oath.
That is his decision to make. The fact remains that Rubio and Jindal are both clearly Natural Born Citizens. You might not vote for them because of your myth about two citizen parents being required. But Senator Thompson and former Attorney General Meese and the US Electoral College (none of whose members changed their votes to vote against Obama) and Senators Hatch and Graham and Black’s Law Dictionary are all correct in saying that Rubio and Jindal are eligible because the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not the parents.
Romney still might pick someone else, of course. But they are eligible nevertheless.
[...] RNC effort to redefine Natural Born Citizen, clearing Rubio for the GOP ticket, once respected Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson enters the fray. Thompson wastes no time regurgitating the same lies that have protected Barack [...]
In 1795, Alexander Hamilton wrote a legal brief on direct, indirect and excise taxes. He starts the brief by saying,
“…It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms—there is none.”
and he ends the brief by saying,
“…where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.”
Chief Justice (and former President of the United States) William Howard Taft echoed this sentiment in his 1925 opinion in Ex Parte Grossman,
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”
So yes, Senator Rubio as well as Governor Jindal, Governor Haley and Senator Snatorum are all “natural born Citizens”.
[...] http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/ [...]
Rubio is not Qualified for the office of POTUS just as Obama is NOT, In order to be Natural Born, which is unique to POTUS both Parents must be citizens! As much as I would like for him to be, you can’t have it both ways!
Obama does have other problems as well, as in Dual Citizenship, but again, Rubio is NOT as well!
It is sad that the foundational truth of the meaning of nbC may very well be overrun by a professional propaganda campaign. The success of propaganda is manifest when the twisted “truth” becomes accepted by folks like Mr. Thompson as foundational truth, and it appears to have succeeded to a significant degree. The un constitutional interpretations of the14th amendment, beyond the intent of covering freed slaves, that created a simple” born on the soil” native born citizen class is a key enabler, as is the attempt to equate natural born subject with natural born Citizen.
An nbC is the only class of Citizen requiring no written positive law. All others are naturalized.
The Cultural Marxists [5th Column] & their Fairy Tales
[Commie Dictator Lenin: "If you tell a lie often enough you will come to believe it." -- In other words, not only are the Obots duping their useful idiot followers, but also brainwashing their own minds too.]
Fairy Tale #1- ehancock: “The only possible source of Natural Born, since Vattel was not translated to include the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” until TEN years after the Constitution was in effect, was the common law. That was the commonly used meaning of the term, and it referred to the place of birth, not to the parents.”
Fairy Tale#2- The Magic M: “So just because Franklin read Vattel’s book, it means the framers adopted his definition? (Which, BTW, reads entirely different in French; and the translation “natural born citizen” did not appear until 10 years *after* the Constitution was ratified. Were the framers time travelers or psychics?)”
Fairy Tale#3- ehancock: “In any case, the world Natural Born Citizen was used in the common law, and it was not used in a US translation of Vattel until ten years after the US Constitution. The idea that the writers of the US Constitution would make a total change in the meaning of Natural Born from what they were familiar with, and what was common, and what the legal experts at the time assumed that they were referring to, to a completely new principle WITHOUT TELLING US—-is nutty.”
The Truth — The tellers of fairy tales get part of it right with 1/2 truth propaganda. It was after the Constitution was ratified that the term “natural-born citizens” showed up to replace Vattel’s term “naturel” in the 1793 & 1797 English translated editions of Vattel’s Law of Nations, Book 1, chapter XIX, §212. Buttttt, what they deliberately leave out is they know the founders/framers knew by 1781 [7 years before the Constitutional Convention] in their english speaking-educated minds “naturel” to them meant “natural-born”. From the congressional records we have a proposal [plan] sent by the French Minister in July 1781 to the Continental Congress for regulating their respective consuls and vice consuls as part of the ongoing Treaty of Amity and Commerce Between The United States and France of 1778. Secretary of Congress, Charles Thomson, translates the french written document into english so all the representatives in Congress from the individual colonies [states] can participate in the debates on it. In Article III of the proposal he translates “les sujets naturels” to “the natural born subjects”. See Article III in French & Article 3 in English:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DATE+17810727%29::
Remember it’s not important how the French were understanding Vattel’s work, it only matters how the colonists and even more so how the founders/framers of America’s founding documents understood & interpreted Vattel’s Law of Nations. Also, this has nothing to do with Obama.
What the Obots never explain is what the English editions of 1793 & 1797 were translating when they say “the translation ‘natural born citizen’ did not appear until 10 years *after* the Constitution was ratified.” [the tricks of the Obots have become legendary] Any rational thinking person would understand it’s a translation of the prior French editions that the colonists [founders & framers included] were reading, studying & consulting starting in the early 1760s up to and thru the Constitutional Convention. This includes the French editions of 1758, 1773, and 1775. The 1775 edition is the one Franklin said “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…”
Faux-conservative Woodman and marxist-minded Dr. Con should change their logs to refllect the truth.
This is too funny — Dr Con: “Fred, you see the kind of junk I have to put up with?” Dr Con, you don’t have to put up with anything. Shut off your computer and go get a life. After 4 years of daily dedication as a Praetorian Guard for Emporer Obama, and smearing millions of decent honest Americans that doesn’t agree with him, your mind deserve a much needed permanent break. You’ve done your part and then some to help advance the agenda of the cultural marxists. You never know, there might even be an award for you in a future gathering of marxists at the Socialist Internationale.
Rambo:
Dang, I guess most of us just never knew that a letter written in 1778 would trump a SCOTUS decision in 1898. I sure am glad you Birthers never found that Oswald Florp letter-to-the-editor from 1799, or our jobs would be a whole lot more difficult.
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/oswald-florp-the-new-darling-of-the-vattel-birthers/
Whew!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Charlie’s girl is confused, but I’m sure she’s tickled pink I enlightened her on the importance of that letter. What that proposal [letter] does is punch a humongous hole in the Woodman Plan to rewrite our American history.
Did you read this?
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html
Or this?
http://www.redstate.com/ironchapman/2012/05/24/english-common-law-and-american-law-a-digression/
Or this?
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/
Or this?
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/early-use-of-the-term-natural-born-citizen/
And, for those who think that this is only recent conclusions and hence revisionist, there is this from 1829:
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
Did you read this? (It’s right on this page):
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Did you know that Vattel’s word “indignes” was not even translated into “Natural Born Citizen” until ten years after the Constitution was written? Did you know that Minor vs Happersett is considered “dicta”–and the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which held that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision in any case. So if Minor vs Happersett had been ruling, the Wong Kim Ark case would have overturned it.
Did you know that five state courts and one federal court have ruled that the meaning of NBC was defined by the Wong Kim Ark case, not by Minor vs Happersett? Oh, that should be six counting Hollister vs McCain.
Re: “~~We were told through those documents that founded America and its government. We were told in the many historical writings and records we have from the founding period.”
Answer: There is absolutely nothing, not a single letter or a single article, that says “we are changing the meaning of Natural Born from the old meaning under Natural Born Subject to a new meaning under Natural Born Citizen and the new meaning relates to parents.” There is nothing like that AT ALL.
Here is the actual use of the term shortly after the Constitution was adopted:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, that refers to the PLACE of birth, the same use of Natural Born as in the common law. There is no mention of parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
Re: “they know the founders/framers knew by 1781 [7 years before the Constitutional Convention] in their english speaking-educated minds “naturel” to them meant “natural-born”
HOWEVER, the word that appeared in the English-language translations of Vattel before the Constitution was written was not “naturel.” It was “indignes.” (Which was the same word that Vattel used in the French original edition..)
And translating that as “Natural Born Citizen” is a stretch. It is POSSIBLE, but not certain. And, for sure, if the writers of the Constitution were indeed relying on the Vattel “indignes” and translating it as :”Natural Born Citizen,” they would have told us..
The evidence is that they did not use Vattel, which was not the most common definition of Natural Born. They used the one that they were familiar with, the common law definition. It is absurd to think that John Jay, the jurist and future Supreme Court Chief Justice, when writing to George Washington about the importance of a the commander in chief being a Natural Born Citizen, was using the Vattel definition. Jay would only have done that if he KNEW that Washington had read Vattel (and he couldn’t have known that. Washington did indeed read Vattel when Washington was in New York, but that was years later) and he would only have assumed that Washington would understand a reference to NBC as coming from Vattel if he knew that Washington translated “indignes” as NBC). But Jay could not have known that.
So what was the meaning of NBC that Jay referred to? The one that Jay was familiar with as a lawyer, the one that other lawyers were familiar with, the most common of common meanings in America—-the meaning from the common law, which referred to the PLACE of birth.
Your point is well taken. I haven’t found any conclusive proof one way or the other just how the word indigenes was being used, and apparently you haven’t either or you’d have posted it.
We do know that the founders had at least 2 and possibly 3 French editions they were reading prior to the penning of the Declaration that had the word “naturels”, and we know from the congressional records they understood that as the “natural borns”.
Contrary to your claim, the historical records point out that Vattel’s Law of Nations was as Franklin put it, “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…”. Later, scholars studying the founding period claim that Vattel’s work was unrivaled in its use among the founders framing America’s founding documents. I find nothing to dispute that claim.
Why are you having such a hard time accepting that the feudal concept of being a subject in a king’s domain was sent to the Ashheap of History, as far as the founders were concerned, with the signing of their declared independence from Britian? With that separation, the only logical place to turn for a new definition was the natural law writings found in the Law of Nations that would fit for a new independent nation comprised of sovereign citizens.
That book isn’t just one writer on natural law. That’s over 2 thousand years of western thought by dozens of philosophers writing on natural law with its roots in the Bible and the Greco-Roman age.
It is interesting that you claim that the meaning of Natural Born changed when the US became independent, when as you say ” the feudal concept of being a subject in a king’s domain was sent to the Ashheap of History.”
So we are no longer feudal subjects, agreed, profoundly agreed. But don’t you think that if the writers of the US Constitution had intended to make a change in the meaning of Natural Born when we were no longer feudal subjects THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US?
Citizens and subjects are profoundly different, but who says that citizens require citizen parents while subjects do not require subject parents. Surely a major change like that and there would have been articles and letters pointing to the change—and yet there is nothing.
Under your notion, by far most of the members of the Constitutional Convention read French (That is not very likely) and saw the word “indigènes” and translated it as Natural Born Citizen, and yet there is no record of a letter from one member to another pointing to this. In fact, it is not a likely translation at all. When Article II of the US Constitution is translated into French, no translation has ever used “indigènes” as the French word for Natural Born Citizen.
John Jay’s letter about the need for a Natural Born Citizen is particularly harmful to your case. This is because obviously he was a lawyer and used the words in the way that he was familiar with in the common law. Okay, say that you do not believe it, say that he really used Vattel (although he did not mention that he used Vattel, for sure). Say that he was thinking “VATTEL.”
But remember he was writing to Washington. So did Jay KNOW that Washington had read Vattel? No Jay could not have known that. Washington MAY have read Vattel by that time (he certainly read or re-read Vattel later, when Washington was in New York and took out a copy from the New York Society Library, but that was after the Constitution was written).
How could Jay have known that Washington had read Vattel? He couldn’t. And how could Jay know that Washington would translate “indigènes” into “Natural Born Citizen?” He couldn’t.
When there is a familiar way of using a term, and you do not say that you are using it another way, then the person you speak to or write to will assume that you are using the term in the familiar, common way. Yet you say that when Jay wrote to Washington and did not say that he was using the word the Vattel way, and could not have known that Washington would translate :”indignes” as NBC, that Jay was using the word the Vattel way.
That is silly. John Jay, a lawyer, careful about words, would not have used the word the Vattel way, without SAYING that he was using it the Vattel way, or saying that he was referring to parents. And Jay was a lawyer, when he thought about legal terms, he thought in terms of the law, and the word Natural Born was commonly used in the law to refer to citizens who had been born in the country.
Re: “We do know that the founders had at least 2 and possibly 3 French editions they were reading prior to the penning of the Declaration that had the word “naturels”,’
Vattel wrote: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The “Naturels” is the part of the sentence that is translated as “natives.” It is the “indigenes” that AFTER the constitution was written was translated as “Natural Born Citizens.”
More importantly, the writers of the US Constitution read a lot of other things besides Vattel.
Re your comment: “Franklin put it, “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…”.
Once again, they read a lot of other things besides Vattel.
Re: “with that separation, the only logical place to turn for a new definition was the natural law writings found in the Law of Nations …’
Answer. If that were true, they would have told us. It would be easy to say: “We are basing our new meaning of NBC on Vattel,” or “from now on we will require two citizen parents,” or “now that we are separated, let us change the definition of Natural Born,” or even “we now rely on Natural Law and not the common law, and the meaning of NBC in natural law is…” But there is nothing like that at all.
Yes Vattel was a great guy, but he did recommend some thing that we did not adopt, and he was not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers. That is not evidence that we followed him. Nor is the fact that some of the writers had read him, because they read other things too.
And the fact that we are no longer feudal subjects does not tell you that there was a change in the meaning of Natural Born either. Subjects and citizens differ, to be sure, but they do not necessarily differ in everything, and if the new meaning of Natural Born in fact did change, then they would have told us so.
~~Redundant as this is to keep responding, I will once more take a trip into that ObotLand where the minds of the blind lead the minds of the blind. I would probably accomplish more barking at the moon.
It is interesting that you claim that the meaning of Natural Born changed when the US became independent, when as you say ” the feudal concept of being a subject in a king’s domain was sent to the Ashheap of History.”
So we are no longer feudal subjects, agreed, profoundly agreed. But don’t you think that if the writers of the US Constitution had intended to make a change in the meaning of Natural Born when we were no longer feudal subjects THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US?
~~The founders did tell us in the Declaration [a philosophical & legal document], and you ‘profoundly agreed’ that subject was gone when the ‘one people’ dissolved those political bands that had tied them with ‘another’. The modifier ‘natural born’ for subject stayed the same with the ‘another’ where the children born in the domain of a sovereign king were his subjects. A totally new concept had replaced the old so it could be shown to the nations of the world that the new rising state [Franklin] was no longer under the yoke of the British Monarch. The modifier ‘natural born’ was now being applied to children of the citizens who were the sovereigns. Natural born citizen became as opposite to natural born subject as day is to night.
Citizens and subjects are profoundly different, but who says that citizens require citizen parents while subjects do not require subject parents. Surely a major change like that and there would have been articles and letters pointing to the change—and yet there is nothing.
~~Have you paid no attention to what Mario has posted here or the articles by J.B. Williams & Publius Huldah? It’s all common sense.
Under your notion, by far most of the members of the Constitutional Convention read French (That is not very likely) and saw the word “indigènes” and translated it as Natural Born Citizen, and yet there is no record of a letter from one member to another pointing to this. In fact, it is not a likely translation at all. When Article II of the US Constitution is translated into French, no translation has ever used “indigènes” as the French word for Natural Born Citizen.
~~Since French was the international language at that time, and the founders/framers were the more educated among the colonists, it is highly probable that the majority did understand the language.
~~In the French editions the title for Section 212 is “of the citizens and naturals”. In the text of Section 212 it reads “the naturals, or indigenes”. I’ll leave it for you to decide if the word “and” is being used to separate naturals from citizens, and in the text the use of the “comma (,) with or” is grouping together naturals & indigenes.
John Jay’s letter about the need for a Natural Born Citizen is particularly harmful to your case. This is because obviously he was a lawyer and used the words in the way that he was familiar with in the common law. Okay, say that you do not believe it, say that he really used Vattel (although he did not mention that he used Vattel, for sure). Say that he was thinking “VATTEL.”
~~As did many of the other founders that framed our founding charters so too did John Jay have a copy of Vattel’s Law of Nations in his library.
But remember he was writing to Washington. So did Jay KNOW that Washington had read Vattel? No Jay could not have known that. Washington MAY have read Vattel by that time (he certainly read or re-read Vattel later, when Washington was in New York and took out a copy from the New York Society Library, but that was after the Constitution was written).
~~We can’t say either way if Jay knew whether Washington read Vattel. We can only say that the book that the founders were using as a guide while they were penning those founding charters was Vattel’s Law of Nations. I think we can make an accurate assumption that Washington was listening to all the debate that was going on.
How could Jay have known that Washington had read Vattel? He couldn’t. And how could Jay know that Washington would translate “indigènes” into “Natural Born Citizen?” He couldn’t.
~~You’re making an illogical Obot assumption that only 2 founders were involved with the Article II natural-born Citizen. June 18, 1787 – Alexander Hamilton proposes that born a citizen of the USA be a requirement for president. 5 weeks later that was discarded for Jay’s proposal that a president has to be a natural-born Citizen, and that passed.
When there is a familiar way of using a term, and you do not say that you are using it another way, then the person you speak to or write to will assume that you are using the term in the familiar, common way. Yet you say that when Jay wrote to Washington and did not say that he was using the word the Vattel way, and could not have known that Washington would translate :”indignes” as NBC, that Jay was using the word the Vattel way.
~~Besides the fact that it would of only taken Washington or any of the other founders at the Convention a mere minute to look it up in that Law of Nations book they were using, what exactly are you trying to prove? It was not a 2-man convention.
That is silly. John Jay, a lawyer, careful about words, would not have used the word the Vattel way, without SAYING that he was using it the Vattel way, or saying that he was referring to parents. And Jay was a lawyer, when he thought about legal terms, he thought in terms of the law, and the word Natural Born was commonly used in the law to refer to citizens who had been born in the country.
~~You meant commonly used [past tense] at one time for subjects who were born in the King’s domain, eh?
Re: “We do know that the founders had at least 2 and possibly 3 French editions they were reading prior to the penning of the Declaration that had the word “naturels”,’
Vattel wrote: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The “Naturels” is the part of the sentence that is translated as “natives.” It is the “indigenes” that AFTER the constitution was written was translated as “Natural Born Citizens.”
~~See what I said above about you deciding how it was used. Remember the founders were using the 1775 French edition.
More importantly, the writers of the US Constitution read a lot of other things besides Vattel.
Re your comment: “Franklin put it, “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting…”.
Once again, they read a lot of other things besides Vattel.
~~Of course the founders read more than Vattel. There is probably just in the Jefferson Library alone more than 50 books on the natural law. Vattel had a good legal mind and the unique ability to condense all those writings on natural law, modenrize it for his time, and apply to the nations.
Re: “with that separation, the only logical place to turn for a new definition was the natural law writings found in the Law of Nations …’
Answer. If that were true, they would have told us. It would be easy to say: “We are basing our new meaning of NBC on Vattel,” or “from now on we will require two citizen parents,” or “now that we are separated, let us change the definition of Natural Born,” or even “we now rely on Natural Law and not the common law, and the meaning of NBC in natural law is…” But there is nothing like that at all.
~~America’s founding started with Natural Law. 1st paragraph [introduction] in the Declaration. The natural rights show up in the 2nd paragraph [preamble] with “that among these are”, meaning there are more than just those 3 listed.
Yes Vattel was a great guy, but he did recommend some thing that we did not adopt, and he was not mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers. That is not evidence that we followed him. Nor is the fact that some of the writers had read him, because they read other things too.
~~As I’ve said before I do not believe any 1 writer was a major influence on the Constitution, but my opinion is that the book, Vattel’s Law of Nations, was the guide and had considerable influence on what the founders penned in those founding documents. Just Grotius and Cicero alone brings back 130 hits when I did a search on Vattel’s work at the Library of Liberty.
And the fact that we are no longer feudal subjects does not tell you that there was a change in the meaning of Natural Born either. Subjects and citizens differ, to be sure, but they do not necessarily differ in everything, and if the new meaning of Natural Born in fact did change, then they would have told us so.
~~We were told through those documents that founded America and its government. We were told in the many historical writings and records we have from the founding period.
~~PS: Woodman & Dr. Con are leading you astray with their fantasy & propaganda.
First, “born a citizen” and “natural born citizen” are synonyms. You can use either one of them. The fact that the writers of the US Constitution, mainly lawyers, decided to use the legal term and not the common language term “born a citizen” only shows that they tended to use legal language.
You are still trying to show, as does Apuzzo, that there was a change in the meaning of Natural Born from NB subjects to NB citizens. This is possible, but it requires proof, and there isn’t any. The fact that Vatttel in a translation AFTER the Constitution was written said that NB citizens require citizen parents is not proof. It may be proof that HE thought it, but since the Federalist Papers do not mention Vattel and DO mention the common law, it is not very likely.
There are certainly no letters or articles saying “the NB meaning has now changed from the old meaning when we were subjects to a new meaning now that we are citizens” or “Vattel is the guy to follow on the meaning of NB.”
That being the case there is NO evidence that the meaning of Natural Born changed. None whatsoever.
If the writers of the Constitution had meant to change the meaning from the common meaning that they used, and that historical evidence shows that they CONTINUED TO USE (notice the Tucker and Rawle quotations, and the wrote at the time, and Rawle was actually close to many of the writers of the Constitution) they would have told us.
They did not tell us. You may believe your dreams that the meaning of NB must have changed from its old meaning in the common law, but the US Supreme Court did not think so in the Wong Kim Ark Case (six to two, one not voting), and Meese and Hatch and Graham and Black’s Law Dictionary and five state courts and one federal court do not believe your dreams. They believe that if the writers of the US Constitution had meant to change the meaning of Natural Born from the place of birth to the parents THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.
Sorry, that answer should be put here, and not above:
Re: “~~We were told through those documents that founded America and its government. We were told in the many historical writings and records we have from the founding period.”
Answer: There is absolutely nothing, not a single letter or a single article, that says “we are changing the meaning of Natural Born from the old meaning under Natural Born Subject to a new meaning under Natural Born Citizen and the new meaning relates to parents.” There is nothing like that AT ALL.
Here is the actual use of the term shortly after the Constitution was adopted:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
As you can see, that refers to the PLACE of birth, the same use of Natural Born as in the common law. There is no mention of parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”
So, you assert you’ve read Apuzzo’s analysis. And you still harbor no doubts about your opinion? Obstinate and intellectually lazy, I’d say. Like I said: you’re willfully incapable of objectivity. Note too that Apuzzo doesn’t resort to invective and snarkiness to prove his point. So, who has more credibility? Squeeky Fromm or Mr. Apuzzo?
For whatever it’s worth to you, I was an immigration specialist/counselor for 22 yrs and was initially unconvinced of Obama’s ineliigibility. But, further research (for 4 yrs) led me to objectively conclude that he, like Jindal and Rubio, is not eligilble. Had hoped my search would have led elsewhere, but, sadly, it didn’t. Thus, the matter remains a serious and legitimate issue for the nation. It screams for sober and objective resolution. Since the courts have so thoroughly muddied the waters, it will be up to Congress and/or the several States to properly define NBC as it relates to the Presidential Clause. Obviusly, Squeekies, Thompsons & jdelaney3s cannot resolve the problem, period.
I believe Meese, and not Apuzzo:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
I believe Senator Thompson, on this site, and not Apuzzo. I KNOW that Vattel, on whom Apuzzo bases his case, was not translated into English with the words “Natural Born Citizen” in the book until ten years after the Constitution was written. I know that the words Natural Born had been in the common law for three hundred years before the Constitution. I believe that if the writers of the US Constitution were using Natural Born in a way differently than in the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.
jdelaney3:
Well, I hate to be rude, but if it took you 4 years to read Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny, then maybe that is the root of your mistake.I mean, you don’t get much clearer and concise than the Ankeny decision. The Birthers there said the same thing they are still saying:
“[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”
The Ankeny Court (3 appeals court level judges) read Wong Kim Ark (1898) and disagreed:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15
That whole decision is only a few pages, yet covers all the applicable law. Here is a link to what I call “The Case The ‘Two Citizen Parent’ Birthers Just HATE!!!”
http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/the-case-the-two-citizen-parent-birthers-just-hate/
You hold the keys to your own sanity. Stop and ask yourself why you spent 4 years researching something that should only take an hour or two to determine??? After all, that is the way one goes about determining the status of the law on an issue. Either they, or their lawyer, goes to the books and reads the laws, and the cases, and comes back with an answer.
This natural born citizenship stuff only has one real case, Wong Kim Ark (1898), and everything else is based off of it. Sooo again, ask yourself why YOU spent four years researching something that shouldn’t take but a few hours???
I think you hypnotized yourself and entered into some sort of cult-like self-induced trance of Subjective Reality. That is why people laugh at Birthers and ridicule them. That is why Mark Levin says Birthers are irrational. That is not typical for simple disagreements over politics. That is typical when you realize that you are dealing with an irrational person and belief.
Sen. Fred Thompson wrote a simple and direct piece explaining reality to you, and just look at all the nutty Birther comments above. Look at the refusal to acceopt simple reality and all the delusions you engage in to believe this silly two citizen parent stuff.
My suggestion is that you stop hanging around Birthers and stop reading their claptrap and break free of the cult. You will be a whole lot happier person. And a whole lot saner.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I always spent my half an hour to read this webpage’s articles or reviews everyday along with a mug of coffee.