NBC = 1,2,3

NBC (Natural Born Citizen) =

1 – Born in the U.S.
2 – Father was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth
3 – Mother was a U.S. citizen at time of child’s birth

Per the 1758 work that was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787,

Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

All three conditions must be met in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. 

Barack Hussein Obama II fails to meet the second condition (his father was not a United States citizen). He may also fail to meet the first condition (more evidence exists to show that he was born in Kenya than exists to show he was born in Hawaii), but that is superfluous. BHOII is already conclusively ineligible because he fails to meet the second condition, regardless of whether or not he meets the first condition.

So given that, I ask:

OK, Speaker Pelosi, How Did the DNC Certify Obama’s Eligibility?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to NBC = 1,2,3

  1. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Natural-born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    That’s what Vattel wrote. But there’s no evidence that the majority of the framers of the Constitution or the framers of the 14th amendment agreed with him.

    Vattel also wrote: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”

    So, clearly Vattel recognized that British law was different from the laws of other countries with regard to the birth of citizens. He thought that British law “naturalized” the children of non-British persons if they were born in Britain. But British common law was less complex than that.

    It did NOT consider that the children of non-British parents were “naturalized.” It considered EVERY CHILD born in the realm (with minor exceptions such as the children of diplomats) to be “Natural Born Subjects.” And our law stems from the British Common Law. Our definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is the same thing as “Natural Born Subject” except that we are not subjects of a king.

    And, according to the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” That cannot mean that a child born in America with parents who are citizens has the right to be president and a child born in America who has only one or even no parents who are American citizens does NOT have the right to be president. In the eyes of the Declaration they are, and should be, equal under the law.

    Would it be a good thing that we have two categories of citizens born in the USA, those that are the children of citizens and those that are not the children of citizens? If so, then how can they both be created equal? Why should a child whose parents were naturalized before her birth have any more rights than a child whose parents were naturalized after her birth?

    Also, there is the strict constructionist argument. IF the writers of the Constitution had wanted to bar someone with allegiance to any other country, they would have said precisely that. They would have said: “no one with allegiance to another country,” Or they would have said: ” No dual nationals” Or they would have said: “A Natural born citizen is one who is born in the USA of parents BOTH of whom were citizens.” But they left Natural Born Citizen just as ordinary language—implying that it is the same thing as “Natural Born Subject.”

    Also, it is likely that Article II was amended to some extent by the 14th Amendment which says: “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. “

    Critics of this meaning that Natural Born means simply that someone was born in the USA say that this merely refers to the large category of ordinary citizens and not specifically to the requirements to be president. Quite true.

    But the 14th Amendment sets up two categories of citizens, those that are naturalized and those that are born in the United States.

    It is difficult to see why those that are born in the USA are not Natural Born Citizens. Meaning why shouldn’t an interpretation of Article II use the 14th Amendment as guidance as to citizenship? At the very least, the 14th Amendment gives guidance to the definition of Natural Born Citizens, tending to confirm that Natural Born Citizen means the same thing as Natural Born Subject under British Common law. The exclusion of “subject to the jurisdiction” has always referred only to the children of foreign diplomats.

    There are those that say that “natural born” is not the same as “native born,” and that it is a broader category. That is, “natural born” includes all persons born in the USA, plus the children of US citizens who were overseas at the time of the birth. Yale Law Review points out that in the 1980 Census over a million persons were shown to have been born abroad to US citizens.

    http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf, and see footnote 2. I would suspect that the million has increased to say, 1.5 million since 1980, which amounts to about 0.5 percent of the population. McCain would be one of the ones who fall into this category.

    This definition adds to the usual definition that “natural born” is merely “native born,” BUT it does not require that a Natural Born Citizen be both born in the USA and the child of two citizens. Only Vattel does that, and not even that with regard to English law.

    A final point is the question whether my parents’ nationality at the time of birth truly affects my allegiance in any way. This is like saying that because my father was a Baptist at the time I was born, I must be a Baptist all my life. Nobody believes that today, and it is just as hard to believe that the writers of the Constitution believed that absurdity in the 18th Century.

    So, the British Common Law, the 14th Amendment, and the Declaration of Independence all show that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is simply someone who was born in the USA.

    Many congressmen and senators who are also lawyers agree. For example: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    And:

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), who said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004.)

    And here is Lincoln’s Attorney General: Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

    “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

    “And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

    “If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

  2. John says:

    I firmly disagree with the premise of the above post contradicting the thesis of this thread.

    For all the verbosity spilled above, the matter is quite simple:

    The 14th Amendment makes a deliberate point of having nothing to say about the “natural born citizen” requirement for the presidency, and it therefore does not alter in any way the enduring distinction between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen” who is not a “natural born” citizen.

    (a) The Constitution, in Article II, makes a CLEAR AND INARGUABLE distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States” by stating: “”natural born Citizen, _OR_ a Citizen of the United States . . . ” The Constitution therefore clearly recognizes these as two distinct types of citizens under the Constitution. Otherwise, the word “or” (emphasis mine) and one of the clauses (preceeding or following), is irrelevant and unnecessary. This meaning is required (not optional) in the English language by the plain connotation, denotation, and grammar of all these words as used here.

    (b) The 14th Amendment, makes a distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and (a citizen) of “the state in which they reside.” Notice that the wording of “citizen of the United States” is EXACTLY THE SAME as the wording naming one of the two categories of citizens recognized in Article II of the Constitution, proving conclusively that the authors of the 14th Amendment both consciously knew and thereby explicitly stated that they were neither referring to nor modifying the conditions granting or implications of “natural born citizen” status under the Constitution by the amendment.

    Thus the 14th Amendment does clearly maintain the distinction made clear in the language of Article II of the Constitution, for if there had been any other intent in this Amendment, the wording required would necessarily have included the phrase, “natural born citizen.” Without this phrase, it cannot be claimed that the 14th Amendment modified the legal meaning of “natural born citizen.”

    That not being the case, the conjunction of “born or naturalized” must be construed to apply only to that which is explicitly stated: a “citizen of the United States), which may or may not be “natural born” (by other criteria, nowhere mentioned in the 14th Amendment.)

    Thus the 14th Amendment, interpreted correctly according to the plain ordinary meaning of English language constructions, does not in any way amend Article II of the Constitution.

    As for the sentence containing the “equal protection” clause, again, correctly interpreted, it cannot alter, limit, restrict, or abridge any part of the U.S. Constitution, for it explicitly pertains to powers invested in the several “states”, not powers invested in “the United States,” a clear distinction made in the first section which must therefore prevail throughout the 14th Amendment.

    Read it carefully:

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    “NO STATE SHALL . . .”

    Again, ruling over this sentence is the distinction made in the first: the distinction between “the United States” and a member “state” of that union. The above quoted sentence does not alter, limit, restrict, or abridge any of the powers granted to the United States by the Constitution, including the power to define who can be a president, because “the United States” is not a member “state” of the union, but the union itself, and the clear distinction between the union itself and any of the several members of the union was made in the first sentence.

    Thus, the abridging of privileges (such as a privilege of being eligible to the presidency) of a citizen of the United States by the United States itself, IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT. This is as inflexibly required by the plain meaning of the English language as the above distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizen of the United States.”

    The 14th Amendment does not alter the requirement that the president must be a “natural born citizen” in accordance to the meaning of those words at the time the Constitution was originally ratified.

    To argue otherwise is to pervert the English language, the clear intent and meaning of Article II of the Constitution, and the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment, and furthermore, it is to call into question and thereby void and contradict entirely the claim that this country is governed by the rule of law and not by the mere whim of powerful men.

    –John

  3. John says:

    P.S. ” . . . should be equal . . .”

    Like so many absurdities argued as though valid only because they have a superficial appeal to the shallow who look no closer than the blurry first impression, this “case” for treating every human being in exactly the same way is easily shown to be nonsense. By this reasoning, we should sell handguns to angry, drunken felons, give licenses to drive to three-year-olds, and pay the bank robber the same salary we pay the bank teller. Equal in dignity and worth insofar as being human is what is meant by the Declaration of Independence, not equally deserving of all things. Yes, even a three-year-old is capable of understanding somewhat the difference between these two ideas, but that does not mean we should allow him to drive a car on the freeway.

    ” . . . this is like saying . . . ”

    No, it is not. Profoundly so. But I haven’t the time or energy to go into the obvious reasons here. The argument to which I here refer in the referenced post is seriously flawed and completely unsupportable. It is, frankly, stupid. And the comment “Nobody believes that today, and it is just as hard to believe that the writers of the Constitution believed that absurdity . . .” is either intellectual sleight-of-hand (a misleading non-sequitur about an irrelevant straw man that amounts to a crafty lie) or just plain demonstrably false. The principle upon which the “natural born” requirement is based isn’t an absurdity then or now, but the above statement, indeed its entire argument certainly is. Of course they did believe the validity of the principle. Proof: They wrote the requirement in question.

    This person’s “case” for voiding the importance of the “natural born” requirement in the Constitution is so silly, so full of its own absurdities, so infantile, thumbsucking, and scatterbrained that it would be a waste of time to refute every wild shot-from-the-hip part of that screed. One final point is enough:

    ” . . . except for the children of diplomats . . .”

    This ought to bring all the rest of the above referenced blather to a full stop. This one phrase, in its context, makes the case about as well as just about anything could. And certainly a diplomat is not alone the kind of person who falls in this category. “Advocate” is close enough to make the point about as well.

    Quite clearly someone who merely happens to be born here, and then spends his formative years in a place where the people of this country are routinely slandered and belittled by educators sharing the hostile loyalties of his father, is going to have a different INNATE sense of obligation toward this population than someone born and raised here by two parents committed to its welfare. This isn’t a perfect or foolproof way of deterimining loyalties, of course, no one is claiming that, but it is expected that it will filter out just such a dubious case as is highly likely to sow discord and doubt among the population, such as, for example, is now roiling the confidence of America’s population precisely for being in violation of this principle, and that alone makes clear the ample reason that exists to preclude such a possibility in the first place.

    There are scores of millions of people who are eligible under the reasonable requirement that the president be LIKELY loyal to this country above all others, so it isn’t necessary, cannot ever be necessary to ignore this principle for just any pretty face with a strong desire to be president. There is certainly a large enough pool of eligible citizens from which to choose a person who has above-average leadership abilities It isn’t a question of what “right” does a candidate have to run for the office, it is a question of the “right” of the entire population to be governed by someone in whom everyone has a high level of confidence*.

    That level of confidence is not possible with a person having conflicting loyalties (such many believe to be presently camping in that office). One willfully blind and deaf might be able to pretend that such is not now the case. But the consequent uneasiness that pervades this country right now is palpable, and in large measure a direct result of having violated this principle. Very many are of the opinion that it is inarguably having a harmful effect on everyone, even if only for that very reason. Since there were certainly others available that did not have that particular (and serious) deficiency from among whom the nation could have chosen, that ought to be all that needs to be said, were this indeed one nation.

    *A government derives its just power to govern by the consent of the governed. The roughly 20 percent that voted for the camper in the office is not anything even close to “consent of the governed.”

  4. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “The roughly 20 percent that voted for the camper in the office is not anything even close to “consent of the governed.”

    I’m not sure what you are saying here. If you are saying that most people in the USA do not vote, that is true–but a fair number of them are under the age of 18, so they can’t vote. Others are illegal immigrants, who count in the 300 million but do not count as voters, and then there are always people who are sick on the day of the election. Finally, there are some who do not vote because they cannot make up their mind, so they can hardly count for McCain or for Obama. This percentage runs about the same in all elections.

    The fact is that considerably more than the majority of voters chose Obama and he received 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173.

    And, of course, Obama won a considerably higher percentage of the voters and of the electoral votes than Bush did in either of his elections. In the first Bush election, in which Bush won the electoral vote but was behind on the total vote, we did not refer to “the roughly 20 percent (or less) that voted for the camper in the office.”

    The fact that we have elections and agree that the winner of the electoral vote is the President is an important part of our Constitutional process. It is at least as important as Article II, which I agree with you on. In my view a president must be (1) Elected according to the rules set by the Constitution (the winner of the Electoral College vote); (2) a Natural Born citizen.

    However, I agree with Senators Lindsey Graham and Orrin G. Hatch (And a lot of others, but these are two with clear quotes) that a Natural Born Citizen is merely some person who was born in the USA.

  5. smrstrauss says:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    And:

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004.)

    And here is Lincoln’s Attorney General: Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

    “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

    “And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

    “If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

    End quote:

  6. smrstrauss says:

    Article II of the Constitution says: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.’

    You say: “(a) The Constitution, in Article II, makes a CLEAR AND INARGUABLE distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States”

    Virtually all who have read Article II say that the distinction is between a Natural Born Citizen and a citizen of the United States (including naturalized) at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. You read the whole thing together ignoring the comma.

    The argument is the comma is misplaced. Most constitutional scholars say that the reason that the Constitution has two categories, (1) natural born and (2) a citizen of any kind including naturalized US citizens, provided that they were born before the Constitution, was to allow Alexander Hamilton to be president (He was born on some island in the Caribbean).

    Re: “The 14th Amendment makes a deliberate point of having nothing to say about the “natural born citizen” requirement for the presidency.”

    Well sure. It was NOT talking about the presidency.

    On the other hand, neither does Article II in its use of the term Natural Born.

    It does not make a special definition of the kind of person who can be president. It does not say: “A natural born citizen shall be one who was born in the territory and has two parents who were citizens at the time of birth. It does not say: “No dual nationals.” It does not even say that American Torries (the Americans who fought against the Revolution) are not eligible to be president. It simply says “Natural Born Citizen,” 35 years old and 14 years a resident. So, what does “Natural Born” mean. Is it a special definition, the Vattel definition, or is it a reference to a similar term, “Natural Born Subject” which was used frequently in British Common Law?

    At this point spend a second on the 14-year requirement. That is something that only subsequent legislation could clarify. For, after all, does it mean 14 years in which EVERY day was spend in the USA? Or does it merely mean that in 14 years a majority of days must have been in the USA? Or does it merely mean that by the time of the election a total of 14 years in any way (5,110 days) must have been spent in the USA?

    Since the framers were vague on the point, they must have assumed that later generations would find a way to figure out this situation—and we have. We have various laws clarifying residence, which are not special laws for the presidency, but do the job. One of the models would be the tax code.

    You see from this that the Framers MUST have allowed some subsequent legislation or guidance to affect the meaning of Natural Born in Article II. What guidance? Well, the best guidance is the 14th Amendment, (Though I think that even Title 8 of the US Code, would give good guidance, and that allows even children found in the USA under the age of five to be considered Native-Born Citizens.)

    The 14th Amendment and US Federal Citizenship law do not, of course, refer specifically to the presidency but the 14th Amendment clearly does allow ONLY two types of citizens, those that are born in the USA and those that were naturalized. Are the ones who were born in the USA “natural born citizens?” Well, maybe not, but it sure looks that way, what else could they be?

    To be sure, the writers of the 14th Amendment may really have in mind that this referred only to ordinary citizenship and NOT to Article II (and at least one, Bingham) is reported to have felt that, but it is more likely that most of them figured that native born and natural born are SYNONYMS.

    After all, the British Common Law holds that Natural Born Subjects are merely those that were born in the British Realm. And, as the Wong Kim Ark case ruled (,http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/index.html) Natural Born Citizens are merely the US synonym for Natural Born Subjects.

    Here is the quote:

    [The child of alien parents born in the United States] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’

    The Wong court also said:

    “Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

    This agrees exactly with Atty General Bates (Lincoln’s Atty Gen, in 1862), who wrote:

    Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship (1862)

    The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …

    And our Constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

    If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and he who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the “natural born” right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive …

    I take it that you disagree.

    Well, fine, but the real question is whether you will get five votes on the Supreme Court who agree with Vattel and you, or whether there will be five or more who agree with Bates, and Senators Graham and Hatch, and the Wong case, and this interpretation from Yale Law Review:

    Written by Jill A. Pryor

    It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.

    Vattel was not the only authority that the writers of the Constitution turned to. They also thought highly of Blackstone, whose commentaries on the British Common law were published at about the time of the Revolution. He wrote: “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/

    So, I do not think that you will get five votes on the Supreme Court, maybe not even the four needed to bring the case to a trial.

    Of course, you still could be right. The Supreme Court could be wrong, and you could be right. So, what would you do then?

    Re: ‘The 14th Amendment, makes a distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and (a citizen) of “the state in which they reside.”

    The 14th Amendment actually says: ‘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.”

    That means that the citizens of the USA are also citizens of the states in which they reside. This is not a distinction. It says that they are the same. (States have the power to impose residency requirements, of course, but that is all.) So you cannot say that there is any analogy with Article II. What you can say is that the 14th Amendment does not create a special class of people who are born in the USA of parents who are already citizens and these people are better than the ones who were simply born in the USA. TWO categories only: Born and Naturalized.

    Re: “As for the sentence containing the “equal protection” clause, again, correctly interpreted, it cannot alter, limit, restrict, or abridge any part of the U.S. Constitution, for it explicitly pertains to powers invested in the several “states”, not powers invested in “the United States,” a clear distinction made in the first section which must therefore prevail throughout the 14th Amendment.”

    I did not refer to this section, but you are right that it refers to States and not to the Federal Government? Why not? Because the equal treatment of citizens is already required under the Bill of Rights. For example: [nor shall any person] … “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

    Re: “The above quoted sentence does not alter, limit, restrict, or abridge any of the powers granted to the United States by the Constitution, including the power to define who can be a president, because “the United States” is not a member “state” of the union, but the union itself, and the clear distinction between the union itself and any of the several members of the union was made in the first sentence.”

    I quite agree with you. THIS section has no relevance on “Natural Born.” This section does: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

    Why? Because it clarifies that the Constitution refers only to birth as the way a citizen is created other than naturalization. This indicates that the Blackstone definition of Natural Born Subject applies to Natural Born Citizen. It does not specifically say: “This changes Article II,” but it does indicate that born in the USA is the same thing as “Natural Born.”

    What are you going to do if you cannot get five votes on the Supreme Court to agree with you?

  7. smrstrauss says:

    I have another point.

    If the framers of Article II meant the Vattel concept of what a natural born citizen is and did not mean what British common law defines as a Natural Born Subject, they would have made that clear.

    In other words, if it was possible when the Constitution was written to interpret “Natural Born Citizen” as the US equivalent of “Natural Born Subject” and they did NOT want that to happen, they would have written something to that effect.

    So they would have written something like: “A natural born citizen,” meaning one with two parents who were citizens and born in the USA, ” or whatever. But they did not.

    Since they did not, we must assume that they were referring to the most common definition of Natural Born, which at the time was the use Natural Born Subject in British common law.

    Under that definition, someone only had to be born in the British realm. The number of parents who were citizens was irrelevant.

  8. smrstrauss says:

    And that is why

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said: “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

    And:

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said: “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004.)

  9. John says:

    [blockquote]You read the whole thing together ignoring the comma.[/blockquote]

    Nonsense. The next clause does not alter my point a bit. There is a clear distinction in Article II of the Constitution between a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” at a particular point in time.

    A “natural born citizen” is a kind of citizen that cannot change status over time. Either one always is or one always is not such a citizen.

    A “citizen of the United States” is clearly a kind of citizen that can change status over time. For example, the founders were not “citizens of the United States” at birth, since the country did not exist then.

    For another example, a naturalized citizen changes citizenship status at the time of naturalization.

    The term “citizen of the United States” used in Article II of the Constitution and in the 14th Amendment refers to a broad category that includes citizens who were born such and citizens who were naturalized.

    It was the clear intention of the framers to exclude naturalized citizens from the office of the presidency.

    Because the term “citizen of the United States” may refer to a naturalized citizen, it is disingenuous at best, and indeed it may even be perversely deceitful to claim that a “citizen of the United States” is eligible for the office of the presidency on that basis alone. Such is clearly contrary to the very point of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II.

    One may argue over the meaning of “natural born citizen” but one cannot honestly claim that every “citizen of the United States” is eligible to be president.

    Again, since the 14th Amendment used the same language as that used for the second kind of U.S. citizen in Article II, it is dishonest, perverted, unjust, and clearly incorrect on the basis of the plain meaning of the English language to argue that the 14th Amendment changed the law regarding Article II of the Constitution and its “natural born citizen” clause.

    (The “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment cannot change any part of the body of the Constitution, because it does not apply to the federal government, but only to the individual states–but even in that limited application it cannot otherwise but be understood to be the world’s most supremely stupid, foolish, and barbaric law, since a strict, literal interpretation of “equal protection” for “all people” would require that we give driver’s licenses to toddlers, allow pre-school children to perform surgery, and compel the government to treat murderers no differently than mothers. Thus the 14th Amendment, in a grotesque wake-me-up-it’s-too-real instantiation of the law of unintended consequences can be interpreted by the court to give the court carte blanche to dictate the meaning of “equal protection” however they see fit, drawing the boundaries capriciously, arbitrarily, as we all have too much plainly seen. No rational person would think it good to interpret this clause in a strictly literal way, as I pointed out above. But there is nothing to prevent the court from seeing “equal” “protection” as meaning almost any conceivable thing, the law effectively gives them unlimited authority, should they want it. And since only the court stands between the court and such a grotesque misuse of power, the 14th Amendment does certainly create a dictatorship of the judiciary–a dictatorial power that has, in fact, been used! It is indeed the world’s most supremely stupid, foolish, and barbaric law, just as I said. Now what was that sweeping oratory, once again, about the Civil War, for all its bloodshed, having preserved government of the people by the people and for the people? Would that it had! Stupid, stupid, stupid! . . . only a few careless words, and . . .)

    Only by perverting language and the plain ordinary meaning of words can an unjust judge claim that the 14th Amendment repealed the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution.

    It most certainly did no such thing.

    –John

  10. smrstrauss says:

    Re: ‘Only by perverting language and the plain ordinary meaning of words can an unjust judge claim that the 14th Amendment repealed the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution.”

    What is a Natural Born Citizen? Did the Constitution say that it requires birth in the USA plus two US parents?

    If not, is birth in the USA sufficient for a Natural Born Citizen?
    Or, is birth in the USA plus one US parent sufficient for a Natural Born Citizen?

    The clearest legal reference to Natural Born before the Constitution was written was in Blackstone, who had a commentary on the Common Law of Britain, and he said that a Natural Born Subject was simply a person who was born in the British Realm.

    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/

    (And “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    Now, as for the 14th “changing” Article II. It changes it in one obvious way. It allows blacks to vote and to be president.

    But on the question of Natural Born, the important thing is that the 14th only defines two kinds of citizens, those that are born in America (native-born, or maybe Natural Born) and those that are naturalized. Since someone who is merely born in the USA can be called either native-born or Natural Born, there is good reason to believe that the writers of the 14th Amendment were satisfied with British Common Law on the subject of what makes someone Natural Born for Article II.

    That means merely birth in the USA. Or, at a minimum, birth in the USA plus one US parent of EITHER sex.

  11. tom says:

    Are you clinically retarded? You appear so from your postings. Just curious. If you are, good for you — it’s nice to see a retarded fellow operate his own blog.

  12. Pingback: Open, Transparent, and Accountable « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)

  13. NBC, simple as 1, 2, 3…

  14. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, does not define “natural born citizen”, and six years later, in 1874, the Supreme Court case of MINOR v. HAPPERSETT stated “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” In 1874, the Constitution included the 14th Amendment. So again, the Supreme Court itself said that “The Constitution [including the 14th Amendment] does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.”

    Obama’s Eligibility: It’s a Matter of Faith

  15. On 2010/06/16 at 10:44 pm, in a comment on a different thread, I said:

    Do you understand the concept of sovereignty? Do you understand that in 18th century England, the King (or Queen) was sovereign, and the people were subjects? Do you understand that in the United States, We the People are sovereign citizens, and the government is subject to the citizens?

    I have said this many, many times before, but you refuse to listen. You cannot equate subjects and citizens. They are two very different things. And you cannot equate “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”.

    And now this is in the news…

    Many words were crossed out and replaced in the draft, but only one was obliterated.

    Over the smudge, Jefferson then wrote the word “citizens.”

    No longer subjects to the crown, the colonists became something different: a people whose allegiance was to one another, not to a faraway monarch. [Ed: The people were no longer subjects, they were now sovereign citizens.]

    Scholars of the revolution have long speculated about the “citizens” smear — wondering whether the erased word was “patriots” or “residents” — but now the Library of Congress has determined that the change was far more dramatic.

    Using a modified version of the kind of spectral imaging technology developed for the military and for monitoring agriculture, research scientists teased apart the mystery and reconstructed the word that Jefferson banished in 1776.

    “Seldom can we re-create a moment in history in such a dramatic and living way,” Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der Reyden said at Friday’s announcement of the discovery.

    It’s almost like we can see him write ‘subjects’ and then quickly decide that’s not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn’t even want a record of it,” she said. “Really, it sends chills down the spine.”

    I have said this many, many times before, and I’ll say it again:
    You cannot equate “subjects” and “citizens”. They are two very different things.

    And you cannot equate “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. They are two very different things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s