Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

-1 vote

Need help from Constitutionalists, Debate over the Definition of Natural Born Citizen

Submitted by greatscott on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 23:47
in

I have been in a debate with an Obamamite about the definition of a Natural Born Citizen and how it relates to Obama. I have been following the Birther story mostly through the World Net Daily and Joseph Farrah. It appears he (Farrah) is lying through his teeth. No where can i find proof that a Natural Born Citizen must bhave both parents US citizens. Can anyone help me prove or disprove Farrah's claim?

Article 2, Section 1 reads:

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.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1
And the definition of a Natural Born Citizen:

Natural-born citizen

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
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

Any one 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.

Any one 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

Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one 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

Any one 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)

A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html


»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you have the energy to wade throught this blog.

Submitted by Henry on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:31.

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Leo Donifrio is an attorney who brought one of the cases to the Supreme Court and has been writing about and litigating this issue since before Obama was sworn in.

First an aside: If Osama Binladen had sex with an American citizen girl and she had his baby on US soil, would there be any question about that baby not being a natural born citizen, eligible to be President?

I think you are getting sidetracked by looking at Acts of Congress that define a citizen, simply because the Congress cannot amend the Constitution by other than the procedures outlined in the Constitution itself for amendment. An Act of Congress cannot change the natural born citizen requirement for President or define natural born citizen in any way that was different from the usage of that term at the time the Constitution was written.

The 14th amendment did not change the definition of natural born citizen nor did it amend or repeal the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen; it defines citizen, not natural born citizen, so why are you being drawn into that sideline?

You need to look at the reasons why the Founding Fathers made a higher requirement for the President than for Senators or Representatives.

When the Constitution was adopted, almost everyone had been a citizen of the Colonies and these were British Colonies, hence they were British citizens. The British were the enemy once the Revolutionary War began. The Founders could not exclude from qualification as President those who were British citizens at the time of the revolution because everyone was a British citizen, so they made an exception for those who were citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution, but otherwise they required that nobody else could be President who was not a natural born citizen. They did not want the President, who was Commander in Chief to have any allegiances whatsoever to a foreign country.

Back in those days, the father controlled the family, so if your father was a citizen of a foreign country at the time of your birth, you were not a natural born citizen; your father could taint you with mixed allegiances. Some scholars believe that just your father being a foreigner was all that it took to disqualify you, and other believe that either your mother or father being a foreigner disqualified you, but this moot for Obama since it was his father who was not a citizen at the time of little Barry's birth.

By the way, the language in the 14th amendment that says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means not subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of Great Britain due to the operation of the British law at the time of his birth.

If you were born outside the borders of the US, even if your parents were both citizens of the US, you might be tainted by your experience outside the country so you again were not a natural born citizen as it was widely understood at the time the Constitution was written. McCain is not a natural born citizen because he was born in Panama, not even on a military base, but even if on a military base would not have made him a natural born citizen. He got his citizenship by operation of Congressional Statute which is clear evidence that he did not get it by being natural born.

Obama has the taint of foreign allegiances which is the essence of not being natural born.

There is some really interesting information on Donofrio's blog.

—

"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence." Thomas H. Huxley

Any law or resolution passed by Congress is 100% irrelevant to

Submitted by samadamscw on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:47.

the question.

This is because such action by Congress falls under their Article I § 8 power to "establish an uniform rule of Naturalization."

'Naturalization' is an act of a legislature that declares someone who is NOT a natural born citizen, to be deemed a citizen. The rules for who may or may not become a citizen, and the process, will vary.

So that aside, the question remains, who are "natural born Citizens?"

There are some court cases of the day we can look to.

There is also a legal book called The Laws of Nations. It was used by the Founders for various purposes, and was at that time, pretty much the definitive work on international law. In it there is the explanation that a Natural Born Citizen is one who is "of the soil" and "of the parents."

Thus, one would have to be born in the nation in question to two Citizens. It does not matter how the parents became citizens, but that they must be at the time of the child's birth.

This is where Farrah is getting his definition.

Finally, all talk of the 14th amendment is moot.

This is because the 14th does NOT define Citizenship, nor Natural Born Citizen. It creates a separate class, unknown before the amendment, otherwise known as "federal citizens."

These citizens DO NOT have the same rights as other citizens. The Supreme Court has decided this in numerous cases, and they have not reversed themselves on this issue.

A 14th amendment citizen only has those rights granted by Congress. They do NOT enjoy rights protected by the Constitution, except where Congress has explicitly extended that protection.

The amendment was designed to protect the liberty of the recently freed slaves after the Civil War. Otherwise, if the States refused to grant or recognize them as Citizens, they could be treated very poorly. (they were anyway of course, but with the 14th there was some minimal protection)

So, the 14th is like any act of Congress, irrelevant to the question.

The only text on the matter will be The Law of Nations, and any court cases on the subject, which I don't think are too many. (and certainly none recent)

This has never failed to foil Obama worshippers

Submitted by OneWorldMafia on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:10.

Benjamin Franklin's letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author

This is letter 459 in this link:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/DelVol02.html

Vattel's Law of Nations states both parents must be citizens at the time of the child's birth for the child to be natural born.

Def of natural born in Vattel's Law of Nations:
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org

HVACTech's picture

thank you my friend! yes! read their letters!

Submitted by HVACTech on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:14.

what were they talking about? what was important to them and....drum roll please...... why?

discovering their reasons....

changed the course of my life forever.

thank you Dr Paul.

—

The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.

A Very, VERY Good 6 min. Video on this topic......

Submitted by dailypauler on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp2kKNTjH70

—

But THAT can't happen here! * Because some animals are more equal than others -Animal Farm- * A patriot is someone who supports their country all the time and the government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

HVACTech's picture

Law of Nations.

Submitted by HVACTech on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:13.

it is mentioned in the constitution. find the one mentioned, and you will find your constitutional answer.

—

The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.

Tell him there is a $100,000 reward if he prove his point

Submitted by OFallonBrent on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:10.

In July 2009 there was an offer of a $100,000 reward for proof of Obama's "natural born" citizen status. It has yet to be collected.

This site has a pretty good rundown of several of the key points about his birth and citizenship status.

http://silverstockreport.com/2009/obama-citizen.html

It does not address his Indonesian citizenship status or how he traveled in North Africa and the Middle East to countries where American passport holders were banned from entering.

It also does not cover his college records where he may have claims foreign student status or the numerous SSN associated with him, none of which are Hawaiian in origin.

a natural born citizen is

Submitted by NickM RON PAUL 08 on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:01.

a natural born citizen is somebody born within one of these united States. Almost anybody can become a U.S. citizen, but a U.S. citizen is not the same as a natural born american citizen. U.S. citizens can run for any office except for president thats because they do not want somebody to become leader of the nation who might also have a stronger allegiance to their home country. Which is why if you want to be president of this country you have to be a natural born citizen and not just a U.S. citizen.

No - It's More Than Just Being Born "Here"

Submitted by Don Jorge on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:39.

A "natural born citizen" is a person born of 2 American citizen parents, with exception for the Signers of the Constitution (some of whom were "naturalized" American citizens from Britian).

Washington, John Jay and Hamilton all affirmed this in their writings, to avoid persons of "questionable allegiance" due to family, rising to the Presidency, and risk another country (Britian) getting control over the head of state.

The definition also follows the the work of Vattel (Law of Nations), a treatise followed by Founders.

There are judicial rulings confirming same as well.

The question for Obama concerns his Father's British citizenship, exactly what the Founders above discuss and feared in their written texts...

But no Judge is going to touch this, and governing politicians don't follow the Constitution anyway...

That would be a native.

Submitted by ZeroFiction on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 21:17.

Natural status is defined as your bloodline not where you were born.

You forgot about his step-father

Submitted by Misfit4Peace on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:59.

Obamas step father was from obama lived in Indonesia. Obama, with his mother, lived there. Obama went to (a muslim) school there.
Unless he became a citizen of obama lived in Indonesia, he could not have attened that school.
There are no records of him trying to claim he was an American while there or after he left.
Until Obama, or someone else (I sooo hope its Hillary..I dont like her..but..I want her to be the one)shows the real records...then Obama is still a citizen of obama lived in Indonesia.
So on the birther issues...it doesnt matter where you stand...theres still that problem learking in the back ground.

—

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

FIRST off

Submitted by POW on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:05.

you need to decide and tell us, which one of the "two" Constitutions you want to use for referrence. In the second it can say whatever the "Corporation" says it states. LOL go figure.

The very use of the term, "Natural born", means or indicates there IS a disdinction from some other form of citizen.

Besides we all know we now rule politics by popular demand.
The LAW is subservient. We do not rule by LAW, ask your neigbor, and WALMART.

SECOND off

Submitted by POW on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:00.

Is some one getting scared ?

Bloodlines

Submitted by ZeroFiction on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 19:52.

Jus Soli - Native Born Citizen, right of the land.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Jus Sanguinis - Natural Born Citizen, right of blood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

Obamas bloodline includes his Kenyan fathers citizenship at his birth regardless if he was born in Hawaii.

But according to the Kenyan Constitution Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at the age of 23 because he did not denounce his US citizenship. Kenya does not allow dual citizenship.

So is Obama Natural Born? I say no due to the Born wording. Otherwise the constitutional requirement would only be Natural Citizen, not Natural Born Citizen.

John Jay-
"Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen"

Zero Fiction is Correct

Submitted by The Oracle on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:02.

According to The Law of Nations at the time The Constitution for The United States of America was adopted in 1788 a Natural Born Citizen would be one who obtained his citizenship from whatever his Father's citizenship was at the time of his birth. Obama's Father was Kenyan (British subject) when Obama was born. The location of Obama's Birth makes no difference. His Father did not have standing at the time Obama was Born to convey American National Natural Born Citizenship to Obama. On another note, neither did his mother because she was too young. So Obama was doubly disqualified to be a Natural Born Citizen.

None of this matters of course because that government fell in March of 1861. The U.S. Government Corporation which replaced the original United States after The Civil War is in fact a directly owned British Crown Corporation. Independence ended after the so called Civil War and The British Crown reasserted direct control over America through it's newly installed defacto military occupation.

So Obama as a British subject is perfectly qualified to preside over a British Crown Corporation.
No different than being elected president of Land Rover.
Besides who cares, they are just a foreign corporation "doing their dirty business" on North American soil. Why would you want to involve yourself with that criminal lot?

Perhaps after 500 years as colonists of this New World we should form our own government separate from The Old World's still present Colonial Government? About time don't you think?

The Oracle

The British Crown passed it all on to the Mother Church.

Submitted by POW on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:23.

It happened long ago.
There is an old saying around here.

The Jews own the World, the Church runs the World.
If you are not a member of either, you are dog meat.
Your seed of faith is in your wallet.

NOT quite what Christ had in mind.

All Roads Lead to Rome, Still!

Submitted by The Oracle on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:34.

The year was 1215 when King John, in a fit of fear that he would be eternally dammed, signed over all of his current interests in England and any future conquests to The Pope!
Of course The Crown and the monarchy are different entities. The Bankers really have their own shindig called City if London, a city state just like The Vatican and 'New Rome" (Washington D.C.)
So a portion of your taxes go to London and a portion of that goes to the Pope to buy forgiveness for all the bad stuff The British Empire does.

So what's new?

The Oracle

Natural Born

Submitted by donvino on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 19:22.

Any American citizen who was not born by c-section imo.

—

donvino

Just a question..but isn't

Submitted by shuleba on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 18:17.

Just a question..but isn't there a big difference between a born citizen and a natural born citizen? An anchor baby is not automatically born with "natural born American" status as opposed to "born American". Logically it stands to reason that a second generation born American (ie both parents born in America) will have no allegiance to a "mother" country. Their education(indoctrination) will stem from American values, traditions and philosophies which are becoming more and more difficult to define for Americans because of this confusion.

Leo Donofrio's site

Submitted by AAAAANDRE on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 18:01.

Has more than you ever want to know about it...
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

of what value

Submitted by Gene Greigh on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 17:48.

is this definition, if it was crafted by "stinking politicians"?

—

West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

this MAY end up..(but probably never)

Submitted by joepast on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 11:55.

with the 9 justices deciding IF the president is indeed natural born..I do not see this as b/w..

Actually, his father was a

Submitted by nwind on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 13:19.

Actually, his father was a British citizen when he was born. It sure looks black and white to me.

—

Pat

BOHICA!!

But his mother was an

Submitted by Dr. NO. on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 13:23.

But his mother was an American citizen? Its a long article, but is there much precedent for a half-and-half (so to speak) union?

Born in America + American Mother = American > British?

Or not "full" American > above?

Or Father's blood > Mother's blood?

—

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Mother

Submitted by OFallonBrent on Sun, 03/27/2011 - 20:56.

Obama's father was Kenyan, and thus, his father could not give any "natural born citizen" status to Obama, except Kenyan citizenship, (or British).

Obama's mother was American, but 17 or 18, depending on the reports. She was too young to give US citizenship to Obama by blood only, which is crucial for the circumstance of being born overseas, for which she would have to be 19.

From the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act):

http://algiers.usembassy.gov/crba.html

2) Born to one U.S. citizen and one alien parent

Born before or on November 13, 1986
The U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States for a cumulative period (or periods totaling) ten years before the birth of the child, at least five years of which were after the U.S. citizen parent reached the age of 14. If this requirement is met, the child acquires U.S. citizenship under the provisions of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.'

But even if Obama's mother qualified, that would still only give "US citizen" status, not "natural born" status.

Here's

Submitted by Habit4ming on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 11:51.

a snippet from an article by JB Williams, News with Views:
"...The international standard in place then and now is known as The Law of Nations. We see this term referenced in our US Constitution under Article I – Section VIII – the Enumerated Powers section of our Constitution, wherein it states that Congress shall have the power – “To define and punish - Offenses against the Law of Nations;” – note that Law of Nations is capitalized, referring to the international treaty defining national sovereignty and citizenship the world over..."
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams121.htm

Also see:
WHY IS THE RIGHT HELPING OBAMA REWRITE THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams125.htm

And finally:
Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

—

Ron Paul 2012 - The People's Choice
rEVOLution SuperPAC: http://www.revolutionpac.com/
WTP Federal Lawsuit to BAN ALL ELECTRONIC VOTING
Appeal filed 2/13/12: http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/NCEL/PACER2012...

This is rather funny.

Submitted by republic on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 11:13.

If the writers of wikipedia and usconstitution.net really believe that the definition of a natural born citizen is provided by Congress in statute law, then they belive that the definition is infinitely malleable. For example: Congress could in Title 8 say that a citizen at birth is any Austrian named Arnold Schwarzenegger. This would then make the Governator a natural born citizen according to this line of thinking. Obviously this is both illogical, contrary to the intent of the constitution, and completely obviates the purpose of a constitutionally limited government in the first place.

Clearly the terms of the Constitution which are not explicitly left for the Congress to define, must have an anterior definition. It is this definition which must be located in order to understand the scope of the document and the limitations and powers it grants to the federal government.

republic

Correct

Submitted by ZeroFiction on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:00.

If Laws, Definitions, and Words in the legal sense are malleable than what is the purpose of having laws, what is the purpose of writing them down?

Why would the framers specifically use natural born citizen vs. just citizen?

Does It Matter?

Submitted by trisport on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 11:03.

Almost every other provision of the constitution has already been invalidated. Why expend so much effort to hang on to this obscure measly shred of constitutional trivia? Who cares if the figurehead destroying the country is natural born or not?