Paid Advertisement

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.

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

6176 comments
Archbishop Gregori
Archbishop Gregori

"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."

Sorry, you are wrong. Congress can only write legislation declaring what constitutes a CITIZEN, NOT "natural born citizen". The framers based "natural born" citizenship on "NATURAL LAW" or NATURE'S LAW.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

However the very first Congress in 1790 did write into the first Naturalization Act an exemption from needing naturalization for: "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".--Naturalization Act of 1790

The above goes to Original Intent.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom That's not an exemption; it was a consideration. This act proves that children born outside the U.S. are NOT natural-born citizens because Congress was compelled to write a law allowing for such a consideration. If they were already considered natural-born citizens, such a law wouldn't be need, else why not do the same for those born IN the country?

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The words "SHALL BE CONSIDERED..." in the Naturalization Act of 1790 say it all.

In 1874 the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v Happersett that: "The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be Natural Born Citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that."

"Elsewhere" is the Acts of Congress that are signed into law by presidents.

The Article II, Section 1 eligibility status of Panama Canal Zone born John McCain was determined by the courts and the courts will also decide the issue for Canada born Ted Cruz. Four lawsuits and a state election board challenge have already been filed.

Archbishop Gregori
Archbishop Gregori

@jh4freedom :"Elsewhere" is the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution found in the Federalist Papers.


Here is the full statement of the Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875):


"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Yes, that's the entire paragraph, and as several courts have ruled when there was an attempt to apply Minor v Happersett to Barack Obama's Natural Born Citizenship, 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

H. Brook Paige v. James Condos, Secretary of State of Vermont and President Barack Obama: Robert R. Bent, Presiding Judge

"While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–“The natives, or natural born citizens, iare those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. Thus far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical."--Vermont Superior Court, November 14, 2012

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Elsewhere in Minor is from the law of nations, not from Acts of Congress. 

Minor's exclusive definition of NBC: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.

Law of Nations: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Minor said "Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."" and"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress" and "These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since." Again, if children born out of the U.S. were already considered natural-born citizens, they would need consideration in NATURALIZATION laws. 

Tell us how any court when confronted with the Supreme Court's direct statement in Wong Kim Ark, " A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized" would rule Ted Cruz to be a natural-born citizen?? 

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

No judge/court has ever ruled that quotations from the Law of Nations have any special relevance to the natural born citizenship status of any contemporary political candidate for president (ie Obama, McCain, Romney, whose father born in Mexico or Cruz).

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Nor has any judge/court been able to support with any actual legal precedent a reason to rule any contemporary candidate for president to be eligible for office. That doesn't make the obvious go away. The Supreme Court did unanimously and exclusively define natural-born citizen in a means that matches the law of nations.

Minor's exclusive definition of NBC: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.

Law of Nations: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom Well, thank you for pointing out the problem. Contemporary courts are no longer obeying the Constitution, despite their oaths to do so.

There is only one meaning of Natural Born Citizen as used in the Constitution and it's the only meaning that could prevent the President from having foreign influence over him by birth:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Archbishop Gregori
Archbishop Gregori

@ksdb @jh4freedom: Minor was NOT the ONLY case in which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Law of Nations definition of "Natural Born" citizen. Other cases are:

 The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814):  "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."


Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857):  "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):  "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."


Archbishop Gregori
Archbishop Gregori

@Speak2Truth @jh4freedom:  I may be wrong, but didn't the lower federal courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, refuse to hear any of the cases brought before them concerning Obama's constitutional ineligibility, claiming that those bringing the cases "Lacked Standing"? Yet, it seems to me that EVERY American citizen has "Standing", when it comes to blatant violations of the Constitution.

I may be old (71 years), but my mind is still clear, and I remember hearing on the FOX NEWS CHANNEL, that shortly after Obama had been elected, BUT before he was sworn in, he held a 'secret' meeting with eight of the then sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices. FOX reported at the time that no other President-elect had ever done such a thing. To this day, nobody outside of those Justices knows what was discussed. However, at the very least that meeting was highly unethical and, at the very most, it was highly illegal, because at the time of the meeting, there were at least 6 to 8 cases pending before the Court concerning Obama's constitutional ineligibility to hold the Office of President or Vice-President. Also there were several other such cases pending before several lower federal courts. Now here is the thing, following that meeting and the swearing in of Obama, from that day forward, the SCOTUS, along with all of the lower federal courts, have refused to hear any of the eligibility cases against Obama. I believe that IF either Cruz or Rubio should win the election, those same courts will refuse to hear any cases that may be brought against them, concerning eligibility, and that, to me would indicate that the United States is no-longer operating under the Constitution or the Rule of Law.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) has been cited as Supreme Court precedent in contemporary presidential eligibility rulings.

For example:

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

A book on international law philosophy written in the 18th century by a Swiss professor has no bearing on current U.S. law.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Your last quote is from Minor v Happersett (1874) not U.S. v Wong Kim Ark.

Now if you could only find one judge, anywhere in America, at any level of the judiciary to support those rulings as being precedential...

All three citations have been presented in eligibility challenges ruled on since 2008 but none of them carried the day in finding any candidate to be ineligible.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go to court with the judges you have, not with the judges you wish you had.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Many eligibility challenges were dismissed for lack of standing but not all of them were. There were also trials on the merits conducted in some jurisdictions. Where lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing, it was because those who filed suit failed to show how they wrre personally injured by the defendant in those suits.

On presidential eligibility, the persons who had 100% perfect standing were the only four other people to receive Electoral votes and have a realistic chance to become president/vice president: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and/or the national Republican Party on their behalf.

They could easily demonstrate how they were injured by the actions of Barack Obama if he was ineligible, being denied the presidency/vice presidency.

None of those four or the Republican Party ever filed suit or agreed to be a co-plaintiff in a class action eligibility lawsuit. in fact, McCain and the Republican Party got a lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing when a citizen challenged McCain for being born outside of the U.S. (Hollander v McCain & the RNC).

There are no issues of standing at the Supreme Court of the United States. They can take any appeal that four Justices believe has merit. The Supreme Court might rule on whether a plaintiff should or shouldn't have been granted standing in the original trial court and they could send an appeal back to the lower court to be heard on the merits.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

There were no eligibility appeals pending before the Supreme Court when Obama met with the Justices. Only one appeal had reached them: Berg v Obama.

Injunctions had been denied in December, 2008 and the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for oral arguments) was denied on January 12, 2009.

Obama and Biden met with 8 of the 9 Justices on January 14, 2009.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

It was Chief Justice John Roberts who invited Barack Obama and Joe Biden to a social gathering with the Justices.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Obama and Biden to Meet With Supreme Court Justices

President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will visit the U.S. Supreme Court today after an invitation was extended by Chief Justice John Roberts.

This is the third time in modern history that a president-elect and vice-president elect have made pre-inaugural stops to the court—Bill Clinton and Al Gore visited the court on Dec. 8, 1992 and Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush visited the court on Nov. 19, 1980.

Obama and Biden will meet with Roberts and the associate justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room, and are expected to take a tour of the court. The event is private and closed to the press.

Christian Hawk
Christian Hawk

I am honestly totally confused and a lot of what we are all talking about seems to be getting lost in the timing and ubiquity of a stand alone written response.  Would you all be will to go vocal with  your beliefs .  I think I can arrange the event if everyone is agreeable to it. 


Christian Hawk
Christian Hawk

U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY THE LAW © North American Law Center

1) NATURAL BORN CITIZEN – “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (The Natural Law as understood by the Founders in Article II of the US Constitution)

2) NATIVE BORN CITIZEN - 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. (The 14th Amendment definition for “citizen”)

3) NATURALIZED CITIZEN - the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual (aka anchor baby), or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities, (such as a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) form filed with the US State Department at the time of birth). (This includes “anchor baby” or “citizen at birth” born here or abroad, under the 14th)

4) UNDOCUMENTED – anyone who is not natural born, native born or otherwise naturalized as a legal citizen of the United States, also known in U.S. law as an “illegal alien.” (Individuals in the USA via a VISA, or visiting on vacation, or with other written consent of the US Government, are here “legally,” but are NOT “citizens.”)

5) The four above terms are NOT interchangeable. Each is unique and distinct from the other. Only one of the four is constitutionally eligible for the Oval Office. “No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the office of President.” (The only exception were those alive at the time of the adoption, who became “citizens” by virtue of the adoption.)

Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Nicki Haley all fall under #2, native born citizens under 14th Amendment naturalization. None of them are “natural born” US Citizens.

Ted Cruz falls under #4 at present – He resides in the USA without any U.S. citizenship documents at all. Rafael Edward Cruz was a “native born citizen” of Canada at birth in 1970. Mr. Cruz maintained his legal Canadian citizenship from birth, until he renounced that citizenship in May of 2014. No U.S. citizenship papers of any type, bearing Ted Cruz’s identity, have been made public. Only his proof of Canadian citizenship has been made public.

At the very best, Ted Cruz “might” be a “naturalized” citizen of the United States, if any U.S. documentation to authenticate is ever made public.

FINAL WORD - The current “legal” effort is to make all four terms synonymous, equal in legal stature, thereby eliminating the NBC clause in Article II and opening up the Oval Office to anyone from anywhere, with no U.S. documentation at all. If that effort is successful, the new requirements for the Oval Office will be only someone who has “attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States”  per JB Williams and endorsed by Christian Hawk

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Back in 1884 the Supreme Court saw things differently:

Elk v Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94 (1884)

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which ‘no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and ‘the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom You left out a huge chunk of Elk v. Wilkins. You're last sentence is referring to the 14th amendment, not just the "distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization." You need to include the whole quote. It changes the context a lot.


"By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306."

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Nothing you quoted alters the meaning of my point which was taken from Elk v Wilkins: there are only two types of U.S. Citizenship, born and naturalized.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom 

The Constitution affirms all Citizens the same exact rights and privileges whether they were born a citizen or naturalized.

The only other type of citizen recognized by the Constitution is the  Natural Born Citizen, a subset of those who are born citizens. Only the natural born citizen can be President or Vice President.


The Framers made this distinction to ensure the President has no foreign allegiance by birth.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

 

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom Citizenship by birth is not the definition of "natural born citizen". Our Constitution ensures all Citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, have exactly the same rights and privileges.

"If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth." - "NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT" (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905))


It is only one subclass that has access to the Presidency.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations



ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Wrong. It doesn't say there are only two types of U.S. citizenship. It says the 14th amendment only considers two SOURCES of citizenship. It's not a comprehensive limitation on all types of citizenship.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom At some point, you'll realize courts have no power to change the law.

The only correct meaning of the law is that which was understood when it was written. Later courts can be dead wrong.

We know exactly what "natural born citizen" means because we can look it up in the same reference book the Framers used when they wrote the Constitution. 


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

No subsequent court has interpreted the Elk holding in that manner.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 (1898)

[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."

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom As an American, I can tell you with absolute confidence that after the Declaration of Independence, American law no longer recognized Americans as being natural-born subjects to the King of England.

It is the war to get British law off the American people that we call the "Revolution". The next war in that cause was the "war of 1812".

Because a natural-born subject to the King is NOT the same thing as the natural-born citizen of the nation. For an American, it is not possible to be both.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

That excludes British sovereignty over the person who would be President.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

There are many different forms of law in the United States: Constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law and regulations, military law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, state law and local ordinancs.

All exist under the Constitution and are constitutional unless and until ruled otherwise.

Courts make case law.

"It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens."-- Tisdale v. Obama, U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

President Obama is fortunate that 21 court rulings have explicitly declared him to be a Natural Born Citizen and no court has ever ruled otherwise; nor has Congress taken any action to disqualify him from the office that he attained.

"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

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

I agree with you that Americans stopped being natural born subjects and eventually became natural born citizens. The first president to be a natural born citizen was Martin Van Buren who assumed the office in 1837.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom It is "well settled" that the only natural-born citizens are those born in the country to citizen parents. BTW, you just shot down Ted Cruz.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The statute under which Bellei was stripped of his citizenship was repealed by the U.S. Congress in 1978.

Ankeny v. Daniels, Indiana, Ruling on whether Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen.

"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

David in MA
David in MA

@jh4freedom The larger question before any else is: Do these courts have legal authority to even address this issue or act upon it.

My understanding has always beem there are only two entities which can legally make this kind of determination: First, Congress & Second, SCOTUS. And with past SC & Congress decisions along with the understanding of the framers of the Constitution and past usage it takes two parents of U.S birth and the birth on American soil.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The Court in Tisdale v Obama was only dealing with the circumstances of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii.

Five lawsuits have been filed thus far challenging Senator Cruz's status under Article II, Section 1. We'll have to wait and see how those courts rule.

My guess is that because the law definng a Citizen of the United States at Birth includes a person born outside the U.S. to one citizen parent, Senator Cruz will be deemed to qualify as a natural born citizen.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The Supreme Court has allowed 27 lower court rulngs to stand and Congress has exhibited zero interest in this issue for nine years now.

Barack Hussein Obama, II first announced that he was a candidate for president on February 10, 2007, nine years ago today.

RussFowler
RussFowler

Lets talk about how many ways a person can be running for President. Where they were born, the parents all the legal conditions. The only one I see is that both Parents should be US citizens and the child is born to them on American soil or territory control.

None of this that my mother was a us citizen or father. Born in another country by one US  citizen or born in America by non US citizen parent or one American citizen. Before to long, my great-great grand parents were US citizens or one of them was a US citizens. How far back can someone go to claim he is a US NBC. I am sure the Founding Fathers wanted both Parents to be USA born.

What a tangle web we weave. This election will determine if we are Communism, Socialism, or free people with a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.

Lee
Lee

Ted Cruz is a citizen of the US by birth because of his lineage (mother), just not a natural born citizen. You need to refer to Black's dictionary and learn the difference. The framers wanted a native born to be commander and chief not some one with ties to a foreign power. Ted is a foreigner.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@Lee Agreed that he is not eligible. However, it is "Law of Nations", the reference used by the Framers of the Constitution, that provides the exact definition of "natural born citizen"...


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Dennis Morgan
Dennis Morgan

Sorry Jerry, you are wrong.  If you study the creation of the Constitution, you will find that our Founding Fathers specifically meant "Natural Born" to mean being born within the Borders of the United States (which later became also acceptable if born on U.S. Military Bases.)  The whole meaning of this was to assure the person would be loyal and dedicated to his country of birth, the United States, and not have any loyalty to a foreign country.  So there for Cruz does not comply with this.

Dennis Morgan
Dennis Morgan

Ted Cruz is not a "natural born" Citizen of the United States and therefore is ineligible to run for President.  U.S. Citizen and Natural Born Citizen are different.

RussFowler
RussFowler

@Born Citizen of the USA So every anchor baby born in the USA can be president. America is doom. Is that against what the Founder Fathers wanted? Where are the American citizens parents. There is none. Rubio was born by two Cubans parents. Not two USA citizens parents.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Marco Rubio's parents both became U.S. citizens in 1975. Marco Rubio was born in 1971. I think you'll find that very few Americans would agree that a four year old had foreign allegiance or influence that would effect them 45 years later.

David in MA
David in MA

@Born Citizen of the USA Believe what you will, he is not a NBC, what part of his parents not being American citizens at the time of his birth don't you understand? Rubio is a simple citizen, nothing more and fully not Constitutionally eligible to be pre. or V. Prez.

David in MA
David in MA

@jh4freedom It was a consideration on the Chinese case, remember..... a child has the allegiance of the parent until such time the child is old enough to understand changing it.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

There are only two kinds of citizens: at birth or naturalized. The courts have consistently ruled this to be the fact since 1898. There is no difference between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

The courts will rule the same way for Senators Cruz and Rubio the way they did for Barack Obama.

Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.

The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”--April 10, 2012

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Your administrative law judge fails to cite any legal precedent to back up his opinion and instead he uses circular logic. 

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedomIf you think there's a meaningful citation, you need to find it, not make me hunt for something that isn't there.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Here you go, from page 5 of the ruling (whch was accepted and implemented by New Jersey's Secretary of State and upheld on appeal to the New Jersey Superior Court).

The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.

2

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . 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.”

This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,

7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26 40, 41 (1860).

All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person born in the allegiance of the...[EXCERPTED]

------

[footnote] 2

The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the

jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office.

Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claims."

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom 

The Wong Kim Ark case went on at length about who was a "natural born subject" under England's laws and English rule over its colonies in North America. That's nice. But it also noted that Wong Kim Ark, born on US soil, was NOT a natural born citizen. He was only a citizen by birth, as was a natural born citizen who also has a Citizen parent (Father), which Wong Kim did not.

Wong Kim Ark: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."


All that was about determining whether Wong Kim should be a citizen by birth. And, it was a horribly flawed ruling. Wong Kim did not meet America's Citizenship laws. That's called Judicial Activism.


The authors of the Constitution knew exactly what "natural born citizen" means because it is spelled out in the reference book they had relied upon for over a decade in crafting this nation. There was no other definition known to them.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom The Framers would disagree with your opinion. Birth under foreign allegiance has lifelong repercussions.


Just look at mister "Dreams from my Father" using his power as President to aid and abet his foreign allegiances by birth, at the expense of Americans.


The Framers foresaw this danger when they made it ILLEGAL for a person born with a foreign parent or under foreign jurisdiction to be President.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The U.S. Government's attorneys sure believed that they were asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen or not.

The following is from the government's brief for the Justices:

"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."

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom You're not helping yourself. The footnote from your citation admits that nothing in the cases it mentions says what it concludes. "neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office." 

It gives a quote from Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor that says nothing about natural-born citizens. Nothing here backs up his opinion. It's all speculation and distortion of what these cases actually said, and he ignores that Minor actually did define natural-born citizen to satisfy the "unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office."


From Minor:


" This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7]"

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Yes, and you notice that the majority in Wong Kim Ark properly never ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen. They couldn't because the definition they adhered to was the exclusive definition from Minor v. Happersett. 

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The point was that the administrative law judge DID use citations and foonotes to justify his ruling. You said that he did not use precedent.

But his ruling was only an advisory opinion. The final decision on natural born citizenship eligbility was made by the New Jersey Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State Kim Guadagno (R-NJ). Her ruling was upheld by the state appellate court.

This lawsuit was one of 21 rulings that found Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen. No court has ever ruled that he does not qualify as a natural born citizen.

Speak2Truth
Speak2Truth

@jh4freedom No court has allowed the examination of evidence and  examination of the historical context of the natural born citizen requirement to apply it to Obama.

Obama's teams of lawyers, blocking every attempt to resolve his eligibility, made sure of that.

If Obama had been legally confirmed eligible, his lawyers could all have gone home, like McCain's did.



It's easy to see why Obama continued the fight year after year to prevent resolution. His Father was not an American Citizen when he was born.


"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." - Law of Nations

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

The very lawsuit that we are discussing, Purpura, Moran v Obama had witnesses and evidence. If you use You Tube, there are videos of the trial.

In the Georgia eligibility lawsuit: Farrar, Powell, Swensson and Welden, et al v Obama, Obama's attorney didn't even participate in the trial on the merits because he thought the court had no jurisdiction under Georgia law. An attorney can't block anything when they are not even in the courtroom.

The Judge ruled (and I quote): “Nonetheless, despite defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence, the court granted plaintiffs’ request.”

Judge Michael Mahili said, “By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” and the judge stated his decision was based entirely on the law as well as the EVIDENCE and legal arguments presented.

His order was in two parts.

The first part addressed plaintiffs David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Attorney Orly Taitz.

The second part addressed all the plaintiffs, including those represented by Taitz as well as plaintiff David Welden, represented by Attorney Van Irion, and plaintiffs Carl Swensen and Kevin Powell, represented by Attorney Mark Hatfield.

In Part I, Judge discussed the EIGHT WITNESSES and said he found their testimony, as well as the exhibits tendered, “to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”

He stated, “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony,” and said none of the written submissions had any probative value.

In conclusion, Malihi stated, “Given the unsatisfactory evidence presented by the plaintiffs, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ claims are not persuasive.”

In Part II, Malihi addressed the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to run in Georgia’s presidential primary election.

Malihi said he considered, for the purpose of analysis, the following facts: 1) Obama was born in the United States; 2) Obama’s mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of birth; and 3) Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen.

It was the plaintiff’s contention, because Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, Obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States. Judge Malihi said, “The court does not agree.”

Citing a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, in which plaintiffs argued “there’s a very clear distinction between ‘citizen of the United States’ and ‘natural born citizen’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.”

Pointing out the Indiana court rejected the argument that Obama was ineligible, Malihi stated, “[C]hildren born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents,” and said, “This court finds the decision and analysis of Ankeny persuasive.”

While plaintiffs argued the term "natural born citizen" was defined in 1875 in Minor v. Happersett, Malihi said the Indiana court explained that Minor did not define natural born citizen.

He went on to say, “In deciding whether a woman was eligible to vote, the Minor court merely concluded that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens would qualify as natural born, and this court agrees. The Minor court left open the issue of whether a child born within the United States of alien parent(s) is a natural born citizen.”

Citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with which the Indiana court agreed, Malihi said the court extensively examined the common law of England in its decision and concluded Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the United States to alien parents, became a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth.

Malihi stated, “The Indiana court determined that a person qualifies as a natural born citizen if he was born in the United States because he became a United States citizen at birth.”

He wrote, “For the purposes of this analysis, this court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Ankeny, he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen,” and concluded, “President Barack Obama is eligible for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-5(b)."

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Not only did President Obama NOT fight the charge that he is not a natural born citizen, he is the only US President to ever release a copy of his birth certificate for the whole wide world to see, and he did that four months before the 2008 election; and in 26 natural born citizen appeals at the Supreme Court of the United States, the President's attorneys offered NO DEFENSE at all. They never submitted any briefs for the Justices, thus allowing the Justices to rule on those appeals with only the point of view of the plaintiffs.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Malihi misstates several details of fact. Ankeny never declared anyone to be a natural-born citizen, especially not Obama. And Ankney admitted by footnote that it had no legal precedent to support its broad opinion.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom Obama's attorneys went out of their way to NOT show the alleged birth certificate in ANY of the 200 and some case where they had plenty of opportunity. They could not support any argument that Obama was eligible for office.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Obama's attorneys not only provided a copy of his birth certficate for a Ronald Reagan appointed federal judge in Mississippi, they also included a Certified Letter of Verification for the birth certificate provided by the Hawaii Registrar of Vital Statistics.

You can view the birth certificate that was introduced as evidence in the Mississippi ballot challenge and the Letter of Verification on the last two pages of the following court document:

Mississippi Democratic Party Motion v. Taitz

https://www.scribd.com/book/96289285

If anyone else wanted a copy of the birth certificate or if they wanted to inspect the original, all they needed was a court order from a judge (Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b) (point 9). Also, a congressional subpoena has the same legal power as a judge's court order. A committee of Congress could have subpoenaed the birth certificate at any time.

There were literally scores of eligibility challenges where Barack Obama was not named as a defendant, hence there were no Obama lawyers. Ankeny v Daniels is probably the best known eligibility lawsuit, where the Republican Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels was the defendant, not Obama. Governor Daniels defended Obama's eligibility and his right to receive Indiana's Electoral votes.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

I neglected to mention that Barack Obama's ORIGINAL birth certificate is not in his possession. It is the property of the state of Hawaii and Obama's attorneys have no say in whether it is released for inspection or not. Obama's attorneys could present a legal argument but ultimately judges and the state of Hawaii have the final say.

ksdb
ksdb

@jh4freedom The photocopy you mention was NOT provided by Obama's attorneys. They would have had two alleged hard copies of the LFBC. The only filing was by the attorney for the Mississippi Democrat Party and obviously Obama's attorneys were not willing to share one of the two hard copies.

jh4freedom
jh4freedom

Scott Tepper and Sam Begley were the attorneys of record for ALL the defendants in Mississippi's eligibility challenge including the Executive Committee of the Mississippi Democratic Party AND Barack Obama.

The only way Tepper and Begley could have gained access to copies of President Obama's birth certificate is by Barack Obama giving them permission to order copies.

Copies coming directly from the state of Hawaii would be more impressive to a judge than copies coming from a defendant.

realitycheck1776
realitycheck1776

@jh4freedom The letter of verification of course came directly from the state of Hawaii and for legal purposes of establishing the authenticity of the information on the LFBC was as valid as a certified copy. Let's recall how the events transpired. Plaintiff Taitz submitted a copy of the LFBC in her complaint and claimed it was a forgery. This opened a door for the defendants' attorneys Begley and Tepper to request the verification letter from Hawaii. 


The Hawaii laws provide for the verification letter for these situations. When a detail of a vital record is in dispute or the authenticity of a document is questioned a third party can request a verification of the document or information. In this case Scott Tepper requested a verification that Hawaii had the original record on file and that the information on the original record matched the information on the LFBC posted of the White House web site. Hawaii verified that both of those statements were correct.

Leave a Comment
  1. realitycheck1776 jh4freedom The letter of verification of course came directly from the state of Hawaii and for legal purposes of establishing the authenticity of the information on the LFBC was as valid as a certified copy. Let's recall how the events transpired. Plaintiff Taitz submitted a copy of the LFBC in her complaint and claimed it was a forgery. This opened a door for the defendants' attorneys Begley and Tepper to request the verification letter from Hawaii.  The Hawaii laws provide for the verification letter for these situations. When a detail of a vital record is in dispute or the authenticity of a document is questioned a third party can request a verification of the document or information. In this case Scott Tepper requested a verification that Hawaii had the original record on file and that the information on the original record matched the information on the LFBC posted of the White House web site. Hawaii verified that both of those statements were correct.
  2. jh4freedom It was Chief Justice John Roberts who invited Barack Obama and Joe Biden to a social gathering with the Justices. From the Wall Street Journal: Obama and Biden to Meet With Supreme Court Justices President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will visit the U.S. Supreme Court today after an invitation was extended by Chief Justice John Roberts. This is the third time in modern history that a president-elect and vice-president elect have made pre-inaugural stops to the court—Bill Clinton and Al Gore visited the court on Dec. 8, 1992 and Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush visited the court on Nov. 19, 1980. Obama and Biden will meet with Roberts and the associate justices in the ceremonial West Conference Room, and are expected to take a tour of the court. The event is private and closed to the press.
  3. jh4freedom Scott Tepper and Sam Begley were the attorneys of record for ALL the defendants in Mississippi's eligibility challenge including the Executive Committee of the Mississippi Democratic Party AND Barack Obama. The only way Tepper and Begley could have gained access to copies of President Obama's birth certificate is by Barack Obama giving them permission to order copies. Copies coming directly from the state of Hawaii would be more impressive to a judge than copies coming from a defendant.
  4. jh4freedom There were no eligibility appeals pending before the Supreme Court when Obama met with the Justices. Only one appeal had reached them: Bervg v Obama. Injunctions had been denied in December, 2008 and the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (request for oral arguments) was denied on January 12, 2009. Obama and Biden met with 8 of the 9 Justices on January 14, 2009.
  5. jh4freedom Many eligibility challenges were dismissed for lack of standing but not all of them were. There were also trials on the merits conducted in some jurisdictions. Where lawsuits were dismissed for lack of standing, it was because those who filed suit failed to show how they wrre personally injured by the defendant in those suits. On presidential eligibility, the persons who had 100% perfect standing were the only four other people to receive Electoral votes and have a realistic chance to become president/vice president: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and/or the national Republican Party on their behalf. They could easily demonstrate how they were injured by the actions of Barack Obama if he was ineligible, being denied the presidency/vice presidency. None of those four or the Republican Party ever filed suit or agreed to be a co-plaintiff in a class action eligibility lawsuit. in fact, McCain and the Republican Party got a lawsuit dismissed for lack of standing when a citizen challenged McCain for being born outside of the U.S. (Hollander v McCain & the RNC). There are no issues of standing at the Supreme Court of the United States. They can take any appeal that four Justices believe has merit. The Supreme Court might rule on whether a plaintiff should or shouldn't have been granted standing in the original trial court and they could send an appeal back to the lower court to be heard on the merits.
  6. jh4freedom To paraphrase former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, you go to court with the judges you have, not with the judges you wish you had.
  7. jh4freedom Your last quote is from Minor v Happersett (1874) not U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. Now if you could only find one judge, anywhere in America, at any level of the judiciary to support those rulings as being precedential... All three citations have been presented in eligibility challenges ruled on since 2008 but none of them carried the day in finding any candidate to be ineligible.
  8. jh4freedom U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) has been cited as Supreme Court precedent in contemporary presidential eligibility rulings. For example: 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 A book on international law philosophy written in the 18th century by a Swiss professor has no bearing on current U.S. law.
  9. Archbishop Gregori Speak2Truth jh4freedom:  I may be wrong, but didn't the lower federal courts, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, refuse to hear any of the cases brought before them concerning Obama's constitutional ineligibility, claiming that those bringing the cases "Lacked Standing"? Yet, it seems to me that EVERY American citizen has "Standing", when it comes to blatant violations of the Constitution. I may be old (71 years), but my mind is still clear, and I remember hearing on the FOX NEWS CHANNEL, that shortly after Obama had been elected, BUT before he was sworn in, he held a 'secret' meeting with eight of the then sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justices. FOX reported at the time that no other President-elect had ever done such a thing. To this day, nobody outside of those Justices knows what was discussed. However, at the very least that meeting was highly unethical and, at the very most, it was highly illegal, because at the time of the meeting, there were at least 6 to 8 cases pending before the Court concerning Obama's constitutional ineligibility to hold the Office of President or Vice-President. Also there were several other such cases pending before several lower federal courts. Now here is the thing, following that meeting and the swearing in of Obama, from that day forward, the SCOTUS, along with all of the lower federal courts, have refused to hear any of the eligibility cases against Obama. I believe that IF either Cruz or Rubio should win the election, those same courts will refuse to hear any cases that may be brought against them, concerning eligibility, and that, to me would indicate that the United States is no-longer operating under the Constitution or the Rule of Law.
  10. Archbishop Gregori ksdb jh4freedom: Minor was NOT the ONLY case in which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Law of Nations definition of "Natural Born" citizen. Other cases are:  The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814):  "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857):  "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):  "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."