Defining Natural-Born Citizen: The Debate Over Who Qualifies To Run For President

In order to qualify to be president, the U.S. Constitution 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; 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.”

So what defines a “natural-born citizen”?  The answer has not been so simple over the years. The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, and it is an issue that has gone back and forth.

This has all been brought into question as a result of one man whom various media outlets have kept an eye on as a possible presidential candidate in 2016. The man in question is freshman U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. His parents were working in the oil business there. Cruz’s father did not become a U.S. citizen until 2005. So though he has made trips to Iowa and the media seems to be watching him quite closely, does he even meet the qualifications of being a natural-born citizen?

145731159_640

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “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. 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.”

This still only leaves a very vague definition for what constitutes a natural-born citizen. So now we look toward Section 5 of the 14th Amendment which states, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural-born citizen. And yes, that means that there will be legal challenges and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will have to make sure such legislation does not violate the Constitution in any way… including Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

In the case Minor v. Happersett (1875), the court ruled, “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.” – Minor v. Happersett

Though the Constitution is vague in what constitutes a natural-born citizen, Congress has stepped in to attempt to fill in the gap. Under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, Section 1401 defines the following as citizens of the United States upon birth… or natural-born citizens:

  • Anyone born inside the United States. The person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. (This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.)
  • Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
  • Anyone born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
  • Anyone born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
  • Anyone found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
  • Anyone born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

By the conditions just laid out, it would appear that Senator Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president as he would not qualify as a natural-born citizen since only one of the parents was a citizen of the U.S.

However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument. The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.” is a citizen.

Does this change the argument? If it is grouped with Section 1401 of Title 8 of the US Code, then it would appear so.

Currently, citizenship in the U.S. is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  The most recent changes to statutory law was done by Congress in 2001. So since this most recent debate has circulated around Cruz, I am going to focus on one particular section… birth abroad to one U.S. citizen.

There are a certain set of rules for those born after November 14, 1986, but I’m focusing on the rules at the time of Cruz’s birth, which are the rules that were in effect from December 24, 1952 – November 14, 1986. A person born abroad between those dates is a U.S. citizen upon birth if all of the following are true:

  1. The person’s parents were married at the time of birth;
  2. One of the person’s parents was a U.S. citizen when the person was born;
  3. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child’s birth; and
  4. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent’s 14th birthday.

By these very definitions of the law, it would appear that Cruz is a natural-born citizen and thus meets the qualifications to run for president if he decided to do so. This also does one more thing, as well.

image005

In regards to President Obama, if the “birther” theory had been proven correct (and I’m not saying that it is) in that he had been born in Kenya (instead of Hawaii) to his U.S. mother and his Kenyan father, he would still qualify as a natural-born citizen.

As I stated at the beginning, this issue is a complicated mess. The Framers left it vague when they wrote the Constitution. Did they do it because they couldn’t foresee our future situations or was it so we could make such a determination as our nation progressed? One can only really speculate on that.

Regardless, we have done our best to set forth a definition, and one that holds for all Americans — born here and born abroad. The laws have changed throughout our history, and they will probably change again in our future.

For now, we go by the laws which we have — the laws in which we live by — the laws that govern our society. They apply to us all equally. In this confusing mixture, I hope there has been some small sense to the issue and that now we can have a better understanding of it.

About the Author

James Spurgeon
James Spurgeon

James has a degree in communications and works within the media. He knows how to research any topic that he writes about… approaching the topic from both sides of the issue and break them down. He doesn’t consider himself a Democrat or a Republican.

Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

4589 comments
David in MA
David in MA

FOUND IN A POST.......................  

Okay boys and girls. 

Open up Obama's second birth certificate. Now keep in mind he produced that after mounting pressure from Donald Trump on April 27 2011 over 2 years into his presidency. Why the wait. Why not produce it in the first place?

Back to scanning. With you own eyes pick out a letter or number such as the number 1. Zoom in and scan your favorite number or letter and compare to see if the font is consistent. 

Next notice the scribbles throughout the document. Notice that some letters overlap which is pretty amazing before the advent of computers. 

Finally scan the signature and notice the 1961 smiley face. 

So do you believe your lying eyes or the lying media which tries to tell you that you can not trust your God given eyes. 

And that concludes our test for the day children. 

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA So now you're just plagiarizing other people's claims.  You do know that's from the scanning process because of the mixed raster compression algorithm the xerox machine uses a process to save space by trying to duplicate like items.  Sometimes items are replaced.  There is no "smiley face" this is an example of birthers looking at clouds and thinking they see something.


Once again you have the problem that the issuing authority verified the document.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Here's a question for David in MA. Why do you think that the Republicans in Congress have never held a single minute of time on hearings or an investigation into Barack Obama's eligibility as a Natural Born Citizen? The Republicans have been in the majority in the House since 2011 and they have controlled both Houses of Congress for eight months now.

Not one single minute of investigation.

ksdb
ksdb

@PogueMoran @David in MA Forgers also use a process to try to save space and effort by duplicating like items.
You have the problem that the issuing authority REFUSED to verify the document.

David in MA
David in MA

@jh4freedom In my opinion, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN APPROACHED, either in person, by phone or notes, and decided that keeping their family, their lives and their better way of living is more important than America. 

Now, have fun with this.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Ah, I see. There is not one single Republican in Congress who has the courage of his or her convictions. That makes sense to me. They are all that easy to intimidate. No guts, no glory.

That WAS fun!

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

ksdb is obviously unaware of the fact that the issuing authority in Hawaii has released EIGHT verifications for the Obama birth certificate: six written verifications and two verbal verifications. Additionally the state of Hawaii since 2011 has provided a link from their Health Department's web site to the whitehouse.gov image of the President's long form Certificate of Live Birth.

One of the official verifcations was provded to U.S. District Court Judge Henry Wingate of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

1) The first authenticity statement by Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino, MD. Issued October 31, 2008:

http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/08-93.pdf

2) Second authenticity statement by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, MD. Issued July 27, 2009:

http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/09-063.pdf

3) Televised interview with Dr. Fukino on Obama birth certificate authenticity.

http://youtu.be/e9D4n6_Uifk

4) Verification of authenticity press release, state of Hawaii, issued April 27, 2011:

http://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/files/2013/05/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

5) Certified Letter of Verification from Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics for Arizona Secretary of State: http://archive.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf

6) Certified Letter of Verification from Registrar Alvin T. Onaka for Kansas Secretary of State:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/106576604

7) Certified Letter of Verification prepared at the request of the defense from Registrar Alvin T. Onaka for Mississippi eligibility challenge, U.S. District Court Judge Henry T. Wingate, Southern District of Mississippi:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/96289285

(See exhibits on last two pages of the Motion To Supplement Counsel.

8) Radio interview transcript, Governor Linda Lingle of Hawaii naming Kapi'olani Hospital as the Barack Obama birthplace:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@jh4freedom Oh he's definitely aware.  Have you noticed that he seems to believe every birther claim out there?  He believes the BC was forged which has no evidence for.  Not only does he claimed it was forged in 2011 but also the family registered Obama back in 1961 with the DOH and then the DOH gave the information to the two newspapers and all that was put in the birth index.  But not only that but also with the INS file no one checked the information about Barack Obama Sr having a son on August 4th 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii.  He also thinks that the birth index for births in Hawaii would contain births from virtually anywhere without any proof to support that.  


But none of this even matters since he also believes in a two citizen parent theory which he thinks everyone just didn't know about since no one cared that Obama's father was never a citizen this whole time except for his fellow birthers.  He focuses on the BC even though it doesn't matter under his two citizen theory.  It's a joke.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@ksdb @PogueMoran @David in MA Oh look who is back after abandoning the thread where I showed that you lied about the rules of evidence as well as what constitutes hearsay.  You ran from that thread only to come back.


Except you know that the issuing authority verified the document multiple times.  Only in your confused brain is a verification not a verification.  It's funny though how you seem to believe all these convoluted, mindbogglingly stupid, contradictory theories at the same time.  Take for instance your idea that someone would forge a document where the data matched the original just for shits and giggles?  In your theory you seem to think the DOH lied when they verified that the PDF matched the data on the original on their vault.  But hey not only that but you think Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr lied and falsely registered their son back in 1961 and then Dr. Sinclair lied when he signed the original BC.  Oh then the DOH at the time also must have lied since they put him in the birth index.  Oh and they must also be lying when it's a Hawaiian Birth Index for Hawaiian births which you claim contains births not in Hawaii which you can't actually prove.  Oh and the papers are lying when they got the birth data from the DOH to put in the newspaper back in 1961.  You also think Barack Obama Sr lied in 1961 and the INS lied as well when they said Obama had a son born Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4th 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii.  You also think Fuddy, Dr. Fukino, Obama, Alvin Onaka, both recent Governors of Hawaii, the courts, the current supreme court, congress all are lying about this.


But wait there's more, you then believe that there's a two citizen parent requirement that no one seems to know about and only you few birthers know the truth about how things actually are.  Except that it's not how things actually are since it was widely known that Obama didn't have a citizen father but he was sworn in anyway.  Oh you also think Chester A Arthur lied as well.  All your comments about the BC in your mind don't even matter anyway since you believe a conflicting theory which apparently no one with any authority believes.  


So my question is what's it like to be Cassandra?


No forger would go through all the trouble to reproduce a document that matches an original on file.  No forger would split parts of letters into different layers to create a document.  This is something that is more in line with an automated process from an compression algorithm.  Your theory requires complicated twists and turns that defy reason and logic.

David in MA
David in MA

@PogueMoran @ksdb @David in MA


In this case a forger would take great pains to make a spotless document, this Obama BC/COLB is a sloppy attempt and not much effort was put into it because it was done by a low level employee and the belief is that it would be accepted and it was... However, there are still Patriotic Americans who question it, only a muslim or a communist would defend it, in my opinion.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @ksdb So let me get this straight if it's perfect it's a forgery if it's not its a forgery.  No matter what it's a forgery in your mind because you can't accept we have a black president.  There's nothing patriotic about you guys wanting to overthrow the constitution.  There's nothing patriotic about calling those who live in reality Muslims or communists.  Not once have you said anything that has been accurate.

David in MA
David in MA

@PogueMoran @David in MA @ksdb

Look chit for brains, I have never said anything that could be misconstrued as not wanting or liking a black president, so don't post crap that puts words in my posts.

What I object to is an illegal criminal president and in my opinion, Obama is an illegal criminal president.

This "hypocrite" as you elude to, will never believe Obama was born in America and there are other issues to disqualify him, you keep your spin going and your nose will grow long like Obama's has and like all socialist wooden dummies do.  

BTW: How long have you been a communist? Just asking.

TripWire1
TripWire1

@David in MA @PogueMoran @ksdb 


David, so only a "low level employee" could have done this 'sloppy' forgery?  Do you think that everyone at Hawaii Dept of Health has not seen the document online, and heard the allegations about it, inclusive of the highest employees there?

If it is a forgery, then what document is it trying to appear as? It is not any sort of regular form at all, but rather a compilation of 2 documents with a security background.  Saying it's a forgery is like saying a $100 bill from the game  Monopoly is forging a U.S. $100 bill. 


The truth is the document is not pretending to be any particular form of document, but rather is its own distinct attestation from Hawaii, with it providing the facts of birth, and the format it is issued in being irrelevant. 

And thus far, no one has providing credible proof that those facts of birth are false, so it would be improper to claim it as fraud also. 


Some don't like these facts as lain out, but that is the reality.  Hawaii could quite literally put the information on a cocktail napkin, and along with seal and signature, its a valid legal document, as indicated by Hawaiian Revised Statute.


PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @ksdb Really because you've sure proven that?  You believe every nonsense lie possible.  If this was about his policies you would have focused on that a long time ago instead you focus on claiming he's all sorts of things you can't prove.


Except you don't have an "illegal criminal president".  You have never been able to support that charge.


Except again you have no proof that he was born anywhere but America but you simply believe he wasn't based on some ulterior motive for hating the man.  There is no proof to disqualify him.  I'm not the one spinning here you are.  You jump from one false claim to another and every time a claim of yours is refuted you just jump to the next in your script.  Oh look now you're conflating socialism with communism. You've proven you have no idea what the words you use actually mean.


I've never been a communist.  How long have you been a child molester?  Just asking.

David in MA
David in MA

@TripWire1 @David in MA @PogueMoran @ksdb

It all boils down to Obama being the "first black president" that it's the hottest potato to come down the political pike that no one wants to touch it, and THAT is Un-American. The Obama faux presidency will haunt America for 200years, and people like you and "Spin" pogue are to blame... I hope your happy.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

That's why its important that if anyone in the criminal justice system, the judiciary, the legislative branch or any state government needed to confirm the president's birth data, the original, hard copy, vault edition birth certificate can be inspected and no one needs to use any of the copies that are digitally reproduced PDFs.

TripWire1
TripWire1

@David in MA @TripWire1 @PogueMoran @ksdb 

David, yes Obama is unqualified and illegitimate, but chasing a damn birth certificate isn't going to prove it.  And ksdb undoubtedly recalls my being quite "unhappy" about those who still persist in chasing that birth certificate.

However, even if we got the current  Court to unanimously recognize the terms of natuarl born citizen that previous Supreme Courts have so  consistently recognized, that current Supreme Court could not do anythign about it, and would be unable to remove Obama.   Under the doctrine of justiciability, specifically the consideration of it being a "political question", the court is not granted the authority by the Constitution to remove a sitting president. That authority is established by the Constitution as residing with Congress, and given the uniform corruption of Congress, they would prefer to play the hand as it lays, rather than put their own reelections on the line by taking a stance contrary to the status quo. 

That's just  the reality of the situation. The continued occupancy of Obama in the White House has more to do with populism than the actual facts. 

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@TripWire1 @David in MA @PogueMoran @ksdb Except no court is going to recognize it and there never was an exclusive definition.  Simply because Obama is eligible and legitimate just as Chester A Arthur was and other candidates before him like John C. Fremont who had one citizen parent.  There has never been a two citizen parent requirement.  You guys can bark at the moon all you want but your fringe opinions will never get traction.  Facts are not something you guys are familiar with.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

If enough state courts had ruled Obama ineligible for their state's ballot, he would not have been able to reach 270 Electoral votes and could not have been elected president.

What is justiciable in every state in the union is challenges to any candidate's eligibility under state election laws and by state Boards of Elections.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

A Wall Street Journal Editorial July 31, 2009

"Natural Born Citizen"

A child is not a natural-born citizen unless both parents are U.S. citizens. That this is false should be obvious. It is uncontested that Obama’s father was an alien. Thus if both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen, the question of Obama’s eligibility never would have come up. He would have been ineligible right off the bat and would not have run for president. The birth certificate and place of birth would be irrelevant.

Nonetheless, the birthers have blown a lot of smoke around the meaning of the phrase “natural-born citizen,” and we are here to clear it up.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term. The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “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.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “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.” Aside from the children of foreign diplomats and (theoretically) military occupiers, the only U.S. natives not to be natural-born citizens were Indians born on reservations–and this exception was abolished by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924."

TripWire1
TripWire1

@jh4freedom  

The alleged Wall Street Juornal  *Editorial* you offer up,  (without providing any direct reference thereto) is hysterical,  becaue it is offered up there (alegedly) and here as if it were a open and shut cast, when it is nothing but circular logic based on the grossly flawed premise,, that only came into being THIRTY YEARS after the 14th Amendment and was in contradiction to the 14th Amendment authors, the Congress that authored it, and the entirety of American history! In other words, it's bogus boobus fallacy.   

1) Editorials by unnamed and even named persons do not have any sort of inherent weight to them, not even in the Wall Street  Journal.

2)  The claim that argument that both parents need to be false because it's "obvious" is a bogus circular logic all within itself.    The basis for this "obvious falsehood" is the populist view that  the terms of natural born citizen are something else, whith this is nothing but  a flagrant appeal to populism, which is a notorious flaw of argument. 


3)   The editorial then allegedly argues that a natural born citizen is necessarily the same as a natural born subject, pretending subject and citizen are one and the same, when this is "Obviously" false, and we fought two wars to vehemently assert that they were not the same.    


4) Even under British Law, every person born on British soil, or off British soil (they conveniently ignore this part)  of PARENTS who were subjects, are themselves natural burn subjects.  This was the British law in effect in place at the time of the country's founding, and enforced not by natural terms, but by the autocratic authority of the Crown itself under medieval feudalism.  

ERGO, by the terms in place at the time of this nation's founding. Obama would be a  natural born SUBJECT of  Britain,  just as his father would be. and therefore Obama would NOT possibly be a natural born CITIZEN of these United States  This is the enormous hypocrisy of their myopic claims!

5)  The 14th Amendment nowhere recognized British subjecthood, nor common law, and by the repeated statement of its authors, merely sought to ascertain the citizenship status of those born here for generation after generation, and not having citizenship in any other society!  THERE WAS NO SUCH 'RIGHTS' from medieval feudalist British Subjecthood, much less a right recognized in the 14th Amendment! 

6) Natural born citizen (or subject) is nowhere mentioned in the 14th Amendment, and therefore no argument can be made that the term is in any way affected thereby.  The claim to the contrary is nothing but a prejudicial supposition, and does not result in any sort of "obvious" fact, or conclusion,.

7) As argued by Gray in Elk vs Wilkins, and in the Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases, the offspring of aliens (legal and illegal),  Ambassadors, and Indians "not taxed" are all not  citizens of the united States, and for the very same reasoning --- they are not completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States, but rather own foreign allegiance due to the citizenship OF THEIR PARENTS! 

Thus, the importance of the parent's citizenships is seen both in British Law, American law, and history, and Justice Gray's own court opinion, in which Gray himself recognized that the offspring of Ambassadors, Aliens and Indians are all not citizens for the very same reason.  And this is why Ambassadors,  Aliens, and Indians are NOT REFERENCED anywhere in the 14th Amendment, because they are all excluded by "jurisdiction."


David in MA
David in MA

@TripWire1 @jh4freedom As I understand the 14th Amendment is, it was written solely for the newly freed slaves do gain citizenship and was understood so at the time and was a one time amendment, it was an amendment left in the Constitution so that any attempts to revoke citizenship of the blacks would take a lot of work and not be successful. Since that time the 14th Amendment has been bastardized and misapplied numerous times thanks to liberal courts. It has/had nothing to do with anyone but the newly freed slaves.

TripWire1
TripWire1

@jh4freedom 

You evidently have an extremely difficult time following simple, clear and accurate statements, while you promote gibberish as fact. 

None of my beliefs nor methods  have anything to do with fascism, however both your own beliefs and methods have everything to do with fascism, and they are the Cancer that kills this country. My views and liberties are protected by the Constitution and ensured by the limited authority of government, whereas your own views are prohibited by that Constitution and limited government.

I was quite certain that the editorial existed, as it had every tell-tale sign of rabid progressive nonsense claims about it.  I stated you had not provided a link to the editorial, not that it does not exist.
 

And I have seen that editorial before now. and it was nonsense then too.

 

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Oh you're a fascist all right in the tradition of Benito Mussolini. You just don't know what fascism is.

Your style of "individual liberty" is something that decent Americans want no part of.

You wrote "alleged" editorial and stated that the lack of a named author suggested that I made it up.

Aren't you embarrassed, Mr. Fascist.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The Thirteenth Amendment specificies "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The Fourteenth Amendment specifies "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."

If the authors of the 14th Amendment had wanted it only to apply to former slaves, they could have used the language of the 13th Amendment and said: All persons formerly held in slavery or involuntary servitude born or naturalized in the United States...

TripWire1
TripWire1

@jh4freedom 

There's no "if" about this;  the Amendment was written specifically to include those previously recognized as slaves and considered for generation after generation not to be citizens of this country. 

Furthermore the 14th Amendment was  not written to "only" apply to those former slaves, but written to express citizenship in terms that applied to everyone, however without any intent to create any new form of citizenship, in other words, "only for the purpose of recognizing the slaves" but not "only" for the slaves. 


We know the above things to be true from a  number of sources, inclusive of:

1) citizenship as indicated in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 written by the very same Congress that wrote the 14th Amendment ""all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 


The above reference to "not subject to any foreign power" has the same effect as "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment, even as recognized by Gray himself in Elk v Wilkins.
 

2)  The  notes of the1866 Congressional debates. Gray specifically excluded these notes from evidence in Wong Kim Ark so that he might reach his own corrupt conclusion in disregard of Congress.




PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@jh4freedom Watch as he comes back saying you're a pedantic literalist because you simply used his own words against him.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Wow! You mean that there's an extreme right winger who knows what "pedantic" and "literalist" mean? That would be impressive.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

David in MA was obviously not aware of the history of the 14th Amendment since he thought that it only applied to former slaves.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

If David in MA wants to know more about the 14th Amendment he should read a bit about "The Slaughterhouse Cases," {1873} the first major Supreme Court decision under the 14th Amendment which had to do with the civil rights of butchers, not former slaves.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

David in MA
David in MA

@jh4freedom That is correct, it is for freed slaves (and their children, at that time period).


Ever see this, I found it posted elsewhere:

Point 1....the"official" b/c is nothing more than a 9 layered forgery....
Point 2 ...the term used to describe "race" in the 60's was "Negro"
Point 3....His S/S # was issued to a man in Connecticut, first three
              digits are used to identify the state of issuance.
Point 4 ...OB's mom was in Kenya at the time, pursuing a divorce from
               daddy obama, suffered labor pains and gave birth to OB there.
               4 days later flying back to Hawaii to register the birth. Back then
               you didn't need much proof other than a published birth announcement.
Point 5.... View the REAL KENYAN B/C at...   www.  usahitman   .com  /obamas-hidden/bc

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @jh4freedom Everyone has heard this nonsense 1000 times over it's no more true now than it was before.


Point 1:  Umm the PDF is a scan of a BC and not the BC.  The BC is the paper document.  How can a paper document be layered?  Anytime you put a PDF into illustrator it creates layers.


Point 2:  Umm no Negro wasn't used for a parent who was born overseas.  It says so in the coding manual that you code as other non-white which is what 9 is in the manual.  Parents self identify.  It's why "Caucasian" shows up on BCs even though the manual lists White as the acceptable field.  It's why you have Johanna Ah'nee's certificate which has her parents listed as Hawn-Caucasian-Korean and Hawn-Caucasian-Chinese.  Negro wouldn't apply to his father who was born in Kenya.  African is something he'd identify with since it appeared on the Kenyan census.


Point 3:  Social security is a federal program there aren't states that issue them.  Birthers claimed it belonged to a man in CT before when they said it was Jean-Paul Ludwig but that was false so now they've adjusted the theory to claim it was someone else.  The social belongs to Obama and was issued to him in 1977


Point 4:  There's no proof to support that since 1, they were married in the US and not Kenya.  She would have no reason to go to Kenya to pursue a divorce when she was only married to him in the US.  She had no passport during that time period.  They wouldn't have let her fly while pregnant as going to Kenya requires immunization.  There was also no direct flights to Kenya the trip alone would have taken over 24 hours of flight time.  Obama Sr never left the US from 1959 to 1964 according to INS.  You can't just fly back with a child in tow.  The baby would require a passport.  Except you're lying since the birth announcement came direct from the Health Department.  


Point 5: Lol the page you presented shows two supposed radically different BCs.  The first one is the Bomford fake created by an "obot" to make birthers look stupid.  It came from David Jeffrey Bomford's Australian Birth Certificate.  There's the document it was created from.


The second one is hilarious, it was created by career criminal and convicted forger Lucas Daniel Smith who couldn't even be bothered to get basic details right like say the registrar whose name he misspelled and wasn't even registrar at the time.  Not to mention the dimensions of the baby which would be okay if it was a dwarf.  Also the clipart foot print as well as the incorrect date format.  You are gullible.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @jh4freedom There was no "investigation".  Everything I said is true.  Not a single thing you've brought here has been true.  Why do you think Mike Zullo said they're throwing out all their old "evidence" and looking for new "evidence" because what they claimed was evidence wasn't evidence and was complete bullshit.

ksdb
ksdb

@PogueMoran @David in MA @jh4freedom So by showing a document that was intentionally forged, this somehow disproves that Obama's allegedly legit COLB and LFBC were NOT forged???

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom jughead, your WSJ editorial defines NBC with a citation from WKA that doesn't actually use the term natural-born citizen. Also, your editorialist misunderstands the WKA decision. It did NOT use British common law to define natural-born citizen. It used British common law to define what it means to be a citizen under the birth provision of the 14th amendment. Here's where Gray says he is talking about the provision of the 14th amendment.


"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision."

Minor construed the birth provision of the 14th amendment. That provision does NOT say who shall be natural born citizens. He then said Minor resorted to the common law as an aid to define the birth provision of the 14th amendment. You can't have this both ways. If that birth provision defined natural-born citizen, there's no reason to need common law. Gray only used this to create a justification for overriding a treaty with China that didn't allow subjects to naturalize in the U.S., which was presumed to include the children born thereof. 

David in MA
David in MA

@ksdb @PogueMoran @David in MA @jh4freedom

They know that the supporters of Obama would accept it and only a small group would question it and they were right. This is a forged document bit no one wants to address it outside of a small group, which they have been discrediting and with the bullchit of a first black president and low info voters who are more concerned with food stamps, free phones and subsidies than with the security and health of America they have been able to pull off their faux president and have also loaded up America's government with Islamic terrorist supporters and no one has noticed any of this. A coup has been done and most of America is blind tothis.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The federal government's attorneys sure thought that they were appealing a lower court ruling that would make Wong Kim Ark a Natural Born Citizen.

In their appeal brief they asked the Justices of the Supreme Court to rule on the following: "The district court, following as being stare decisis the ruling of Mr. Justice Field in the case of Look Tin Sing (10 Sawyer, 356), sustained the claim of the respondent, held him to be a citizen by birth, and permitted him to land. The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within The United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land."

"For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply -with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing alienage. Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?"

"To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor. That fact is not open to controversy, for the law of China demonstrates its existence. He was therefore born subject to a foreign power; and although born subject to the laws of the United States, in the sense of being entitled to and receiving protection while within the territorial limits of the nation—a right of all aliens—yet be was not born subject to the 'political jurisdiction' thereof, and for that reason is not a citizen. The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and the respondent remanded to the custody of the collector."

To make this issue very simple: there is no difference in law between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States at birth. If a person is one, they are also the other.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

And the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that: [An alien parent’s] "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’

“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.’

…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.

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."

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

No one who questions the authenticity of the president's birth certificate has ever seen or inspected the original document. They are basing their forgery claims solely on viewing digital reproductions of the original that have been converted to PDF and appear on web sites. That just won't fly in a court of law or before a committee of Congress.

Forgery is a CRIME and there is a reason why there has never been a CRIMINAL investigation into forgery.

The reason the forgery claim is hocum is because Hawaii statutes permit an original birth certificate to be inspected by a judge's court order or a congressional subpoena and no one has bothered to do that,

David in MA
David in MA

@jh4freedom

"To make this issue very simple: there is no difference in law between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States at birth. If a person is one, they are also the other."

THAT is not how I understand this post, they are NOT the same.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

If you can find a real life example of someone who qualified as a Citizen of the United States at Birth but then was denied status as a natural born citizen (or vice-versa), I'd be interested in reviewing the case.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@ksdb @PogueMoran @David in MA @jh4freedom The idea of making the bomford document was to show how birthers like yourself fall for easily false information simply because you think it supports your theories.  It proved it with how many birthers passed this around without bothering to vet it.  The document had no provenance and yet the birthers accepted this over the legit BC with an established provenance simply because it's what they wanted to hear.


I laugh every time you try to claim the BC is forged while at the same time holding the conflicting two citizen parent theory.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @ksdb @PogueMoran @jh4freedom Except that it's Obama's opponents who also accept the reality that he was legally elected and is eligible to serve.  Only a small fringe fraction of the American public believes the nonsense you do.  You guys have discredited yourself when you hold various conflicting theories as someone like KSDB does.


And you show a lack of any critical thinking when you try to chalk everything up to free stuff as a reason for voting a certain way.  So when GW Bush was elected twice was it because of free stuff since all those programs existed under him as well?  There was no coup you're just a paranoid prick.

TripWire1
TripWire1

@David in MA @ksdb @PogueMoran @jh4freedom 

David, the problem with it being a forged document is that it doesn't fit the criteria for being a forged document, or even fraud, contrary to the claims made by Arpaio and others.

Quite literally, as indicated by Hawaiian law (and the laws in every other States as well),  DOH could put the birth info on cocktail napkin, and along with a certificate and seal it would be a valid document. The amount of layers are irrelevant.

Not Forgery, Not Fraud


The Hawaiian Dept of Health (HDOH) is entitled BY LAW, under Hawaiian Revised Statute (See HRS §338-13 below), to produce birth information in whatever form it deems necessary, which is reasonable.

This is only part of why pursuing the birth certificate avenue is not only an enormous waste of time, but it is distracting attention away from the actual terms of natural born citizen, and discrediting the overall issue in the public eye. Chasing the birth certificate is doing precisely what Obama has wanted all along, since the days of his FightTheSmears website in 2008.  


Yes, he is an illegitimate Oval Occupant, and a deliberate threat to this country - the archtypal Enemy Within, but scrutinizing the birth certificate isn't going to establish that, nor do anything to minimize the problem.




Hawaiian Revised Statute (HRS):

     §338-13  Certified copies.  (a)  Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

     (b)  Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

     (c)  Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]


TripWire1
TripWire1

@PogueMoran @ksdb @David in MA @jh4freedom 

Pogue said, " fall for easily false information simply because you think it supports your theories."

Now WHERE have I seen this routine constantly at play? Oh, I know! 

We hear it constantly from the orignal birthers themselves - those that claim that birth on U.S. soil has always been a natural born citizen, despite the fact that this was NEVER recognized in this country even for citizenship alone, until fabricated by Gray in Wong Kim Ark!

And yet these original birthers look us in the eye and tell us repeatedly that the consideration of the parents was made up only recently, by people who only reject Obama because they're racist, all while they ignore the centuries that parents citizenships had to be considered for mere citizen status! 


The word "hypocrite" comes to mind. 



PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@TripWire1 @PogueMoran @ksdb @David in MA @jh4freedom Where?  Oh that's right you simply look in the mirror after reading what you've written.  You seem to think any information you read on birther sites must be true because it's what you want to hear.


The fact is one born on US soil who is not born of a foreign diplomat or invading army is a natural born citizen.  You have shown no proof that the founders changed the meaning of natural born from that of what it was under natural born subject to something else under natural born citizen.  


Gray didn't fabricate anything it's the same thing Tucker stated as well as Rawle.  Yes you are a hypocrite TJ.

TripWire1
TripWire1

@PogueMoran @TripWire1 @ksdb @David in MA @jh4freedom 

Pogue, I havent' simply looked in the mirror, but rather have cited historical facts, facts that you and your ilk ignore, and claim didn't exist. pretending all those Supreme Court decisions referencing natural born did not provide a definition, and it had no bearing on the office of President. 

The FACT is that those born on American soil of alien parents were not ever recognized as being citizens, regardless being Ambassadors or an invading army.  

The offspring of Aliens, Ambassadors, Indians "not taxed", and invading armies, born on american soil were ALL excluded from the 14th Amendment's reference to "subject to the jurisdiction", and by the same terms ----

--- OR do you imagine that with the 14th Amendment we somehow began giving citizenship out to the offspring Indians not taxed, Ambassadors, and alien armies with the 14th?  Because none of these are excluded anywhere! 

Your implied claim is  both ridiculous and extremely stupid. 


The founders did not have to change the meanning of natural born citizen. because, as I've shown, Bitain changed the meaning of natural born subject by statute, progressively over time, as documented by Blackstone's Commentaries. Gray had to cherry-pick those commentaries and pretend that what Blackstone wrote, only at one point, was the static definition, when it was not.

What's even more obscene about Gray's argument, is that  "common law" (which that natural born subject did not originate from) was only applicable both in Britain and HERE, when there was no existing law!  After 110 years of the existence if the United States, it is quite certain we had our out laws and standards that we  operated by for citizenship, and British corrupted "common law" statute was entirely inapplicable and an affront to this country's very existence! 


Also as I've shown here, the root definition of natural born subject is the same as our own natural born citizen, with each involving the consideration of the actual allegiance of the parents.


Gray not only lied about the natural born in Britain, but also misrepresented a series of Supreme Court cases, America's hostory, the intent of the  Congress that wrote the 14th Amendment, and even had to pretend he was not contradicting his own decision from Elk vs Wilkins! 


There is an OVERWHELMING volume of evidence unmistakably showing that the Wong Kim Ark decision is nothing but the deliberate and calculated malfeasance of the Gray court! 



PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@TripWire1 @PogueMoran @ksdb @David in MA @jh4freedom No you've simply cited things you misunderstood and took out of context.  The fact is no authority in the US agrees with you on your two citizen parent theory.  It's a theory you didn't hold prior to 2007 let alone before 2008.  It's something you decided on when you had no other avenue to explore for why you thought Obama couldn't be eligible.


Nowhere are the offspring of aliens excluded.  Indians are no longer excluded with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  Children of aliens born on US soil weren't excluded under the 14th.  The 14th included all citizens in the US whether born or Naturalized.  Guess what this means natural born citizens as well.  You seem a bit confused.  Indians at the time weren't born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they were born on foreign sovereign lands.  So again you seem confused what US soil even means.


That's funny how you think what I've said could be considered ridiculous or stupid considering that's US Caselaw and the majority opinion in the US.  What you claim is some fringe nonsense that is reminiscent of white nationalist movements.


Yes they didn't have to change the meaning since they borrowed the term from natural born subject within the common law.  They kept the original meaning.  If they changed it to your two citizen parent nonsense they would have told someone.


Gray didn't have to cherry pick anything.  I would think Gray would know more than you would on this subject.


Yeah so "overwhelming" that it hasn't managed to convince anyone in the court system or with any authority to take up your cause.


There was no malfeasance by Gray.  It's just another example of you throwing a tantrum because your ideas aren't mainstream.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

There's been 117 years to overturn U.S. v Wong Kim Ark or to pass legislation that would render Wong moot. It hasn't happened and the Wong devision has been cited more than 1,000 times in subsequent court rulings.

It sure looks to me as if U.S. v Wong Kim Ark makes good sense and good law to a lot of Judges.

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana (A three judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled unanimously): "Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the United States are 'natural born citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."--Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

David in MA
David in MA

@PogueMoran @TripWire1 @ksdb @David in MA @jh4freedom

The founders did not define Natural Born Citizen except in one slight instance when they made reference in the constitution of who could be president, those in America at the time and those who were born to two American parents in the future. This may be the only mistake they made, understanding what they knew as Natural Born Citizen and thinking those who were to come later would also, they never knew that the democratic socialists would do to the Constitution with their rationalization to justify their corrupt intents. And look at what it has created.

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @TripWire1 @ksdb @jh4freedom They didn't have to define it since they already knew it meant one born a citizen.  They borrowed directly from the common law's Natural Born Subject.


Those around at the time knew what it meant say like William Rawle who was appointed by President George Washington as Pennsylvania's first DA.


" 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. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that he so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us." - William Rawle - A View of the Constitution - 1829


There are no "democratic socialists" trying to do anything to the constitution.  You're the guys trying to overthrow it.

David in MA
David in MA

@PogueMoran @David in MA @TripWire1 @ksdb @jh4freedom pogue, are you related to Obama, you seem to have a way of turning comments around and inserting your meanings and calling others crazy, stupid, etc. It must really pizz you off that "we" are right and your running out of spin.

AND NO, "we" are not trying to do "anything" to the Constitution except follow it and keep grubby hands like yours off of it. 

PogueMoran
PogueMoran

@David in MA @PogueMoran @TripWire1 @ksdb @jh4freedom And again David gets confused.  I don't have to insert meanings.  You repeatedly say things that aren't true and get called on it.  You're not right which is why you keep having to change the subject and make new claims.


Yes you are trying to overthrow the constitution because you don't like who is elected.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

James Madison: Revolutionary War veteran, Founder, Framer, and Fourth President: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other."

House of Representatives, May 22,1789

davidfarrar1
davidfarrar1

@jh4freedom


Let's remember Madison was speaking in an age where the states regulated citizenship within their own borders, where jus soli was firmly established as being native-born of one of the united states. But to be a U.S. Citizen, one must freely renounce any allegiance to any other sovereignties and become a free, stateless, individual, sovereign. As a free sovereign, I can consent to support and abide by the U.S. Constitution. At birth (as a sovereign), consent can only be given under the cloak of allegiance of its sovereign father, and not the state. 

Leave a Comment
  1. Jimmyjam6 Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: "Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise."--Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
  2. Dave B. BlackSunshine84 Dave B. Archbishop Gregori That's a nonsensical claim.  I'll reiterate, it does not establish the precedent AG claims it does.
  3. BlackSunshine84 Dave B. Archbishop Gregori Actually it sets the precedence for every case as it has never been challenged
  4. BlackSunshine84 "However, there still exists one more historical clause which will challenge this argument. The clause states, “a person born before May 24, 1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.” is a citizen." How would a law that applies to persons born before 1934 have any bearing on this conversation?
  5. BlackSunshine84 Jimmyjam6 They made a ton of money off of naive USA citizens. It's time for them to move on with all their cash.
  6. BlackSunshine84 Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, eh, Spurgeon?
  7. Jimmyjam6 I translate that as letting the true believers down easy and hoping donations will still be coming in. How many years does it take to investigate the digital image of a one page document which is still up on the whitehouse.gov web site?
  8. ksdb Jimmyjam6 So how do you translate "it does not mean we are not cultivating new evidence" into the CCP "might be giving up"?? Plus, Zullo said, "he’s continuing to investigate the birth certificate ..."
  9. Jimmyjam6 I read the article. The headline says "delayed" and in the body of the article Mike Zullo is quoted saying: “We’ve cleared two, and the last one is problematic,” Zullo said of the legal hurdles. “If we can’t clear it, it may preclude this information from ever reaching the light of day. It may prevent me from ever disclosing what this is. But it does not mean we are not cultivating new evidence.” http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/07/universe-shattering-info-on-obama-delayed/#QpgccfrUeL7MEWuK.99
  10. ksdb Jimmyjam6 So you posted this link and you're wish about was going to happen without actually reading the story?? This explains why Obots don't understand how natural-born citizen is defined. They don't read.