Craig Andresen

Obama Eligibility Defining Natural Born

By Craig Andresen on January 30, 2012 at 5:10 am

Today, we’re looking at the term, Natural Born Citizen, what it means and from where it comes. That term after all is at the core of the hearing regarding Obama’s eligibility,last week in Georgia.

Our coverage of last Thursday’s hearing has received an extreme amount of traffic and a multitude of comments. Within those comments are a good number from Obama voters and within many of them is a complete disregard for the Constitution.

We don’t know for sure, but one can suppose, they are products of the liberal education and indoctrination system where the Constitution either isn’t taught or parsed to fit a certain agenda and ideology.

We can’t begin to tell you how many, in those comments, have the impression that, “If he was born in the United States, he’s a citizen and can be the President.”

Put your hands in the air and step away from the Kool Aid!!!

Here is where we begin.

As the founders set up a new nation, one that was removing itself from tyrannical rule, it’s hard to believe they would adopt, lock stock and barrel, all the rules of law they were leaving behind. It’s also clear that the framers of the constitution, in a new nation, were clearly aware of the dangers of overthrow from within. For this reason, it seems the framers would have taken direct steps to be sure whoever would be elected to lead, would have allegiance to, and only to, the United States.

To accomplish this, the tern “Natural Born Citizen” was made the rule of eligibility. The European definition was simple, that one born on the soil of a country was it’s natural born citizen. That was part of from what the framers were trying to distance themselves and their new  nation. A new definition and one which would provide more security against foreign allegiance would have been necessary.

The term, “Natural Born Citizen” is found in our Constitution and is commonly referred to as “The Eligibility Clause.” It can be discovered in Article II Section 5 Clause 5 of that great document. It states, as follows:

“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.”

Notice to liberals…It does NOT say “Citizen” it says clearly and distinctly, “Natural Born Citizen” so…the constitution…Learn it, Love it and Understand it.

By the way, as we have pointed out before, the part that says, “or a citizen of the United States,” is followed by, “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” therefore, as the constitution was ratified in 1788, for Obama to be eligible under THAT clause, he would have had to have been a U.S. Citizen in…1788.

Okay then, how does the Constitution define a Natural Born Citizen?

It doesn’t.

So then, what’s the difference between a citizen and a Natural Born Citizen?

To discover the answer to that, we have to do a little looking but clearly, the framers believed there to be a difference or they would not have included the words, “Natural Born Citizen,” in our constitution.

To understand the term, we turn to Emerich de Vattel.

Vattel was the author of “ Law of Nations” back on 1758 which by the time of American Independence had become a wildly popular read. It was a blueprint of sorts for the way laws and should be handled and sovereign nations should behave.

How widely was it known back then? Well, it was used repeatedly in court cases by people such as… Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall, John Quincy Adams and many more important and notable people of that time.

Those most often associated with the writing of the Constitution are, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas Paine and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.

As it is widely known that Jefferson referred to the  “Law of Nations” while writing the Declaration of Independence, that the Continental Congress met regularly in a library which had a copy of  the “Law of Nations, that Franklin had his own copy of  the “Law of Nations and that so many of those considered to be our founding fathers cited the “Law of Nations” in court..

It doesn’t take a great deal of thought to realize that the Framers of the Constitution would also refer to the book by Vattel as they wrote the Constitution.

In the “Law of Nations” one will find the following:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Powerful words, those. Simply astounding really. Let’s take a closer look.

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

In this sentence, Vattel uses “parents” plural. This will be important. Remember this.

Vattel continues, 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.”

Here, Vattel tells us that children naturally follow the birthright of their father. Again…IMPORTANT.

He goes on…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.”

Here again, Vattel makes it clear that the preservation of nationality, what he refers to as “society” is accomplished by the birthright passing down from the FATHER. He shows that children become members of the society, the nation, of the father.

What follows is perhaps the most important part of all:

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Remember and remember well this entire passage as we apply it to Obama and the Georgia court hearing challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in that state and the bigger challenge that he is indeed ineligible to serve as President.

The Constitution tell us, “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.”

In the Georgia court hearing last Thursday, the plaintiffs, as part of their unchallenged case, entered into the record, Minor vs Happersett, 1875. In the written opinion from that case we find the following:

“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.”

There it is again…Parents…plural…Just as it is found in “The Law of Nations…The blueprint for the Constitution.

Many liberals are trying to use the next part of Minor vs Happersett to negate this as it says: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168]   parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

To understand this we have to break into 3 parts the types of citizens mentioned in MvH as follows. 1) “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”; 2) “aliens or foreigners”; and 3) “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”.

In doing this it is clear that the United States Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett is telling us that of the first two, “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” Parents, plural i.e. natural born citizens) and “aliens or foreigners” there can be no doubt. However, as to the third, “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” there IS some doubt but for the purpose of the case, it was not necessary to resolve those doubts.

Friends, the doubts they didn’t need to solve at that time were NOT doubts as to what the framers meant by “Natural Born Citizens.”

Now, for those attempting to employ the 14th Amendment to make Obama eligible…please understand the 14th amendment only deals with who is or isn’t a 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. 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.”

It has nothing whatsoever to do with “Natural Born Citizen” and establishes that a child, born on U.S. soil, of a parent who is not a U.S. citizen is considered a citizen…a CITIZEN…but not a natural born citizen.

The Constitution does not define “Natural Born Citizen but its blueprint, Vattel’s “Law of Nations” does and the United States Supreme Court via Minor vs Happersett affirms that meaning as a child, born in a country whose parents (plural) were citizens of that country.

Now then, for those liberals who will no doubt question all of this. A little more research shows the following.

In a letter to George Washington, one of our founders, John Jay, wrote:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

The letter was sent to Washington on July 25th 1787. Washington, at the time, was the President of the Constitutional Convention and in the original draft, the eligibility clause stated only that a President be a citizen.

John Jay was to become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and it is widely believed, as he referred often to it, that he had his own copy of the “Law of Nations.”

By September of 1787, the finished draft of our Constitution had been signed by 39 of the 55 delegates and within it was the term, “Natural Born Citizen.”

As to the intent of the framers, via the blueprint provided by the “Law of Nations” and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Minor va Happersett,  Obama is not a natural born citizen as Obama’s father was never a United States Citizen and therefore, should not be eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Full Analysis of Obama Eligibility Hearing

Other Presidents With Foreign Born Parents

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

52 Responses to “Obama Eligibility Defining Natural Born”

  1. Dmitri Says:

    Stunning article. How are the courts going to proceed now that obama did not appear in court? Will obama be allowed to remain in office until the next elections if it is found that he is not eligible to serve as POTUS?

    Regards
    Dmitri

  2. Foggy Says:

    If any of this crap were true, you’d think it would be in textbooks on Constitutional Law in every law school in this great nation.

    I also notice that you don’t mention the one lawsuit that directly ruled on whether the citizenship of Obama’s father affects his eligibility: Ankeny v. Governor of State of Indiana, 916 NE 2d 678 – Ind: Court of Appeals 2009.

    It says: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Five lawyers in the U.S. believe in this fake imaginary “two citizen parents” rule that doesn’t really exist in the law. The other 1,200,000 lawyers in this great land of ours think those five are full of crap.

  3. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Foggy

    Your quote:

    “1,200,000 lawyers in this great land of ours…”

    ^Thank you^ for summarizing our problem so succinctly!

    :)

  4. admin Says:

    From Rogue Rose:

    @ Foggy, all 1,200,000 of those lawyers in this great land of ours agree that an Indiana State Appeals court cannot overrule the U.S. Supreme Court. http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

    Also, a Georgia court is soon to issue a default judgment that says just the opposite of the Indiana Court. Are you going to give just as much weight to the Georgia Court ruling?

  5. ConservativeC Says:

    A state court cannot overrule the supreme court unless that case goes to the supreme court and they decide that the lower court is right! Thus a new opinion would be written! But also considering that the supreme court has ALREADY ruled on this issue and been backed up numerous times I doubt very highly that it will be overturned. Therefore the constitution states that a Natural Born Citizen is someone born where the parents are citizens. Obama’s father was not a citizen therefore he could not be eligibal for the presidency. Hmm lets think about that a second. If he is not legally able to be the president then everything he has done up till now is ILLEGAL!! Once this case is done, and they rule in favor or not putting him on the ballot I would urge other state governments to do the same. And secondly since he didn’t show up for court when he was legally bound to be there shouldn’t he be held in contempt of court at the least, if anyone else had done that I am sure they would of been!

  6. Karl Oakes Says:

    If the Swiss philosopher de Vattel were legal authority for anything, then there might be some hope for the Georgia plaintiffs. However, a search of all American cases ever decided yields 24 “hits” for “de Vattel.”

    Result Cite List

    Search: “DE VATTEL”
    Database(s): All Federal & State Cases
    Results: 24 Documents

    The foremost authority on the British common law, which was adopted by the United States, is William Blackstone. A search of all American cases for “Blackstone” tops out at the maximum of 10,000 hits.

    Result Cite List

    Search: “BLACKSTONE”
    Database(s): All Federal & State Cases
    Results: 10000 Documents

    On the subject of citizenship, Blackstone said in 1765:

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.”

    William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62
    1765

    This interpretation was picked up in early American cases:

    Rutherford’s Heirs v. Wolfe, 3 Hawks 272, 10 N.C. 272, 1824 WL 360, N.C., December Term 1824

    “James Rutherford, of Scotland, a native born subject of the king of Great Britain, removed to the United States in the year 1781, and continued to reside therein until the year 1819, when he died, seised in fee simple of the lands described in plaintiff’s declaration, intestate, without issue and without having ever been married, leaving, him surviving, brothers and sisters residing in Great Britain, natural born subjects of the king of that kingdom, who are not citizens of the United States, but are aliens incapable of inheriting real estates. The said James left also surviving him one Walter B. Rutherford, a nephew of the said James, and son of one of the before mentioned brothers of the said James: the said Walter is an alien, born in Great Britain, now residing in this state, but has never been naturalized. The lessors of the plaintiff are the children of the said Walter B. Rutherford, and are natural born citizens of the United States”

    Yeo v. Mercereau, 18 N.J.L. 387, 1842 WL 3351, 3 Harrison 387, N.J., 1842 (using the term “naitve-born citizen” interchangeably with “natural born citizen”)

    Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 7 N.Y. Ch. Ann. 443, N.Y.Ch., 1844 (stating, consistently with Blackstone, that “it is also the law of England, that children born in that country of alien parents are held to be natural born subjects.”)

    If you want to convince a court to go with de Vettel instead of the British common law, it’s not completely impossible. But you have to do a lot more than point to the Law of Nations. You have to explain very specifically and persuasively why the court should not apply the common law of England, which is basically the “default.” A tall order, in my opinion, and so I wouldn’t get my hopes up.

    As for Minor, you don’t have any set of political beliefs to understand that it doesn’t actually DECIDE anything with respect to natural-born citizens. The statement was a dictum — a passing observation not necessary to the decision of the case — and such statements hold little if any authoritative weight in a court of law. On top of that the court never used any words (such as “only” or “exclusively”) to RESTRICT “natural born citizen” to a particular class, so it’s even less persuasive on that ground.

    So, as I said, don’t get too excited, and consider the possibility that maybe something terrible and conspiratorial ISN’T happening in our government right now. Consider the possibility that even if you think “natural born citizen” ought to mean “child born here of two citizen parents,” there’s plenty of legal authority to lead reasonable men and women to honestly think otherwise.

  7. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    Georgia Annotated code:

    “Common law unsuited to this country-

    not adopted”

    :)

  8. Karl Oakes Says:

    Georgia can’t make that decision for the federal government, and I’d like to see a citation for that, because I bet it’s restricted to a particular subject. Show me the statute, please.

  9. Karl Oakes Says:

    Much worse for you: Common Law of England adopted as law of Georgia: For adopting Act, see Act of 1784, Cobb 721; Prince, 570. That’s the general rule, subject to specific exceptions tailored to particular situations. That’s why the plaintiffs in this case have to make a compelling argument that the common law rule does not apply. In my considered professional opinion, citing a book written in French by a Swiss philosopher isn’t going to do it . . .

  10. Betty Davis Says:

    FYI… States run national elections, not the federal government. All states have different laws, check out yours and any you question. Georgia can declare him ineligible and not permit him on the ballot. Evidence of his ineligibility according to Article II, section 1 and fraudulent used of SS number and other crimes were submitted to the court. Check here to see your state and the state of Georgia’s rules. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/entire-atlanta-ballot-challenge-hearing-now-on-art2superpac-com

    Check here for a breakdown of what happened during the court procedure. Millions to Protest Barry’s Eligibility
    “In case you missed the trial, scroll through this page for a blow by blow description of the hearing and updates! … One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered. WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
    Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.”

    Important update! Judge Malihi expedites the date for post trial motions. Moves it from February 5th to February 1st, will issue his ruling shortly thereafter.
    http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/

  11. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Karl O.

    Your quote:

    “Georgia can’t make that decision for the federal government”

    Tell us:

    What jurisdiction will a federal court have over a default decision in a state administrative court?

    ^^

  12. Karl Oakes Says:

    Because the case involves federal election law and the federal constitution, the defendant can — and would — remove the case to federal court as one “arising under” federal law (see 28 USC 1331). More importantly, a state can’t make a final decision as to the meaning of the federal Constitution. So, one way or another, it doesn’t end in Georgia if a Georgia tribunal decides against the POTUS.

  13. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Karl O.

    Then,

    It will be very fun to watch.

    :)

  14. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Karl O.

    Here is a simple question:

    As written in the constitution,

    What is the difference between “Citizens” who can be Senators and “Natural Born Citizens” who can be President?

    ?

  15. Rubye Says:

    If the Supreme Court believes their newest member, Kagan, should not have to recuse herself from hearing and ruling on ObamaCare that she had a part in and clearly supported—then I don’t believe they’re not going to rule against his citizenship.

  16. TinkerTailor Says:

    ohhhh lookie its Foggy commenting up there HA! He is the DISBARRED LAWER from Calif. sharing his BS two cents. who takes this moron seriously ..HEH he is now living in Florida growing pot and selling it under the disguise of a flower shop LOL and stalking conservative sites..

  17. Karl Oakes Says:

    @Daniel, you must have also asked me this on the other thread? Citizens includes (1) natural-born citizens, and (2) naturalized citizens. The Framers apparently didn’t want naturalized citizens to be President, but Obama is not a naturalized citizen. If you have more on that, let’s continue in one place, not both.

  18. TinkerTailor Says:

    Foggy >>Bill Bryan disbarred for supposed drug addiction and fraud according to the CALIFORNIA Bar. William Littell Bryan Jr. #117084 not eligible to practice law since 2001….

  19. Bob Webster Says:

    @Karl Oakes,

    “Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.”

    Are you suggesting the 1875 SCOTUS ruling was incorrect or subsequently overruled when you write, “Citizens includes (1) natural-born citizens, and (2) naturalized citizens.”

    You torture common sense by claiming that a “citizen” is, by default a “natural born citizen” if that citizen were not a naturalized citizen. Why would the framers go to the trouble of festooning “citizen” with “natural born” if not for a reason? A “naturalized citizen” is sufficient to distinguish from a “citizen” by birth. It therefore stands to reason (and common sense), that there is more to “natural born citizen” than being a citizen by birth.

    Apparently, the 1875 Minor vs Happersett opinion does not make the distinction you are trying to make.

    Frankly, I’ll take the 1875 opinion over yours.

  20. Bob Webster Says:

    The first quote of my previous comment is from Craig’s excellent blow by blow description of the Georgia hearing. I should have made that clear.

  21. Jeff Benton Says:

    Actually it will be quite easy to prove that the writers of the constitution relied on “The Law Of Nations” for their definition of what a “Natural Born Citizen” is…

    Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, “has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting”

    And that is just one small quote… think about it… How many peeps do you think will allow a usurper to continue to destroy America?

  22. hagopian Says:

    So if this issue is going to federal court and eventually to the Supreme Court???, If Mr Obama is determined to be an illegitimate president would the Sotomayer and Kagan appointments stand? If the outcome of the appointments are in question and if Sotomayer and Kagan have a vested interest in a favorable outcome for Obama should they recuse themselves?

    The Supreme court requires how many justices for a quarom?

  23. Harry Says:

    I posted this in another thread but I suppose I should repost it here.

    A Natural Born Citizen as defined by George Washington and John Adams in the public acts of the first Congress 2nd session Chapter III on March 26, 1790 clearly states “That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been residents of the United States” I found this when trying to determine the meaning of “natural born citizen” as described in Article II Section 1 paragraph 5 of the Constitution.

    The meaning becomes very clear if you read paragraph 5 then look through the original copies of the Constitution for what was meant by our for fathers by “Natural Born” People confuse “Natural Born” with “Naturalized” and some how in their ignorance think that the two are the same thing simply because they sound the same. They are not.
    Obama was clearly ineligible.

  24. Karl Oakes Says:

    @Bob, you haven’t understood a word I’ve said.

    (1) Minor says citizens born here of two parents are natural born citizens. That doesn’t mean ONLY citizens born here of two parents are natural born citizens. Think about it:

    “Women are human beings.”

    Does that mean ONLY women are human beings, or does it leave room for men to be human beings too?

    “A home run is a base hit”

    Does that mean that ONLY a home run is a base hit, or does it allow for a single to be a base hit as well?

    (2) Minor doesn’t actually DECIDE the issue, it MENTIONS it. So the oft-quoted paragraph is a “dictum” (passing comment), not a “holding” (legal decision). A dictum has no legal weight in our system of justice, because it’s not the product of an informed debate, with briefs and arguments and questions by the judges. To treat it otherwise would give judges the power to legislate off the top of their heads.

    (3) I’m not saying there’s no difference between a citizen and a “natural born citizen.” I’m saying that we adopted the English rule that there are two types of citizens: (a) “natural-born (born here) and (b) naturalized (converted from another citizenship or born abroad of American parents). The Framers wanted to restrict the Presidency to citizens who had been born here, so they used the term “natural-born citizen,” assuming that everyone would understand it to mean what it meant under the English system, and not what it meant under the French system. Bear in mind that out of 50 American states, only Louisiana adopted French law, so that was a reasonable assumption.

    To anyone who is trying to sell the idea that de Vattel was highly influential, I ask this question: How do you explain the fact that in the ENTIRE 19th CENTURY HIS NAME APPEARS IN EXACTLY ONE REPORTED AMERICAN COURT OPINION: The Active, 5 Hall L.J. 543, 3 Wheeler C.C. 264, 24 F.Cas. 755, No. 14,420, 2 Car.L.Rep. 192, D.Miss.Terr., December 1814 — to disappear completely from then until 1918?

    Meanwhile, William Blackstone, foremost expert on British common law, was cited over 1100 times.

    1100 to 1. I couldn’t make that up if I tried. In terms of American law, de Vattel is insignificant, and it’s ridiculous to assume that the Framers thought we would refer to de Vattel 200 years later when we wanted to understand what they were talking about. Really, that argument is a sham.

  25. Karl Oakes Says:

    And here’s some de Vattel for you on religion:

    § 129. Public establishment of religion
    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honor him, And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.

    Does that sound like our First Amendment or more like the OPPOSITE of our First Amendment? So the Framers didn’t exactly follow de Vattel on this point. Why should we assume that they followed de Vattel on natural born citizens? Or that it wasn’t necessary to give future generations a clear signal that they weren’t following English law?

    Whoever dug de Vattel up did so only because his views served purpose, and they have created a myth about him so that people would take him more seriously than they should. American courts in the 19th century paid no attention to him, and neither should we.

  26. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    Since you are still posting on this thread:

    @ Karl,

    This is your position:

    “The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

    You may not think it’s ‘working’ very well.

    But,

    You have yet to show support for your position.

    @)

  27. Karl Oakes Says:

    Wrong. I cited Blackstone’s summary of English law, the fact that we adopted common law, and three 19th century cases treating natural born citizens as citizens born here regardless of parentage. I also debunked the misrepresentation of Minor and I debunked the “influence” of de Vattel. That’s pretty darn thorough if you ask me.

  28. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    Calm down Karl,

    Here is your Blackstone quote:

    ‘William Blackstone, who said:

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.”

    How does this support YOUR position that:

    “The language certainly excludes naturalized citizens”

    ?
    ?
    ?

  29. Nick Horan Says:

    I’ve read all your comments and a few articles on this issue. A few years ago I became a duel citizen from my grandparents and I believe i lost my “natural born citizen” status. Now i have a conflicting loyalty. I had to locate my Grandmothers birth certificate, her marriage certificate, her death certificate, my fathers birth certrificate and marriage certificate AND of course my own birth certificate. That proved my linaged, and all these documents were required the have a raised seal stamps in order to be excepthed by the legal authorities.

    I can’t post a original raised seal stamped document on the internet!!!!!!! You all pretent to be smart and knowglable, but would I get my second citizenship if i merely posted my application on line—- The short answer is NO!!!! It is not hard to go to Hawii and get a certified copy of the alleged “longform birth certificate” The simple fact is that it does not exist, and his already post fraud can not be changed

    If we can’t follow and honor our Constitution we have no Government we can have confidence in or trust.

    Please tell me what we have left after we lose our founding documents, I say not much. At lest i don’t try to make legal excuses !!!!!!!!

  30. Gregory Karpinski Says:

    If the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” means one who is born from two citizens of the United States then this country is being run by fraudsters.

    It is interesting that naturally born citizens from two parents who are US citizens do not have to be born in the United States.
    For example, a son born in Paris, France from US citizens working or vacationing there is automatically a US citizen if he shows his both parents’ citizenship status at his birth. The place of birth for naturally born US citizens is irrelevant as long as their parents are US citizens.
    Gregory

  31. Gregory Karpinski Says:

    If the founders wanted to say ” born in the United States” rather then “naturally born Citizen” (from parents who are US citizens”) they would have simply said so.

    I did not have to be born in the United States to automatically become “a naturally born US citizen” because my both parents were US citizens at my birth and they were working in Paris, France at the time.

    There is greater privilege to be elligible to be President then just enjoyment from citizenship rights regardless of how they have come by: birth in the country, marriage, naturalization as a result of sufficient legal residency etc.

  32. Nick Horan Says:

    To my friend Karl Oaks, going back a few comments, you say Obama can”t be a naturized citizen and he is not naturiezed, than the only option left is to show a original stamped raised seal birth certifficate to somerome who has legal authority.

    Karl, if i was guilty, i would hire you, if i was innocent I would stay far away from you!!

    So who did Obama show his Raised seal birth certificate too????
    Let me know, so i can let the other Sheeple know, Who is it?
    Was in Nancy (Truman) Polosie

    Get back at me with this one, but please don’t trip over your law degree

    Hey , don’t get mad at me , I love a good arguement

  33. Karl Oakes Says:

    @Daniel, I’m losing the motivation to explain this again. We adopted the English common law. Hence children of aliens born in the US are natural born. If you’re not born here, you can still become a citizen by “naturalization.” If the Founders specified “natural born” citizens, then they were necessarily excluding “naturalized” citizens. If that doesn’t make sense to you, let’s just agree that we’re not understanding each other.

    @Everyone, I made a factual error and I want to correct it. I said only one 19th century case cited de Vattel. That’s incorrect, because many cases cited him simply as “Vattel.” When I searched for “Vattel,” I got 1017 hits, mostly 19th century. Far less than Blackstone, but not insignificant.

    My sampling of the cases seems to indicate that he was cited primarily as an international law expert, on matters such as treaties and war and rights in seized vessels. Given that we adopted British common law, I continue to find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Framers would have used the Vattel/French understanding of “natural born citizen” instead of the Blackstone/English understanding without giving future generations a clear indication of what they meant. I think they were smart enough to understand that we would assume the English meaning, which is what we have in fact done. Except for Louisiana, we are a country based on the English, rather than French, legal tradition. However, I wanted to correct my factual misstatement.

  34. David West Says:

    If the amount of effort put forth here was focused instead on getting the US out of our current financial problems (which started before the current administration took office) we would be much farther along in improving our economy. Continuing to spend large amounts of money, time and effort on this is not helping a single unemployed person find a job. This type of action is also NOT helping get a conservative elected as President. The money and focus should be redirected for the benefit of all conservatives.

  35. Daniel's Seventieth 7 Says:

    @ Karl

    Motivation is always the key and thanks for the retraction.

    Your opinion is clear, however, here is your problem:

    If you try to introduce Blackstone,

    It would conflict with the 14th amendment.

    The Amendment states:

    All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…

    It does not say NATURAL born, it says born.

    They could have said Natural Born.

    But they didn’t.

    So,

    who wins?

    The Constitution? (which you would need to change)

    or Blackwell?

    ?

  36. Nick Horan Says:

    So my friend Karl Oakes, ignore me if you will. The Constitution only gives 2 jurisdictions to the Federal Government; Common law and Admiraty. I know they like to inaproprarity claim Statutory juridiction, which does not even exist. Is that why you brought up VESSELS and TREATIES?

    You must be a Judge yourselve, and repeatidly misinform juries over and over as to the true nature of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts in each case.

    I know you wouildn’t spend millions of dollars to hide your BIRTH CERTIFICATE, when you could spend $ 10.00 to have it notorized and mailed in to court.

    Do you have any reply????????? Remember, I like a good arguement, You have one???

  37. Eric Tavenner Says:

    Mr Oakes,

    § 129. Public establishment of religion
    But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society. The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honor him, And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.

    Does that sound like our First Amendment or more like the OPPOSITE of our First Amendment? So the Framers didn’t exactly follow de Vattel on this point. Why should we assume that they followed de Vattel on natural born citizens? Or that it wasn’t necessary to give future generations a clear signal that they weren’t following English law?

    From the Bill of Rights.

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment II

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Amendment III

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Amendment VI

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Amendment VII

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Amendment VIII

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Lets look at this. In plain language,of the Amendments that look to specific rights, the First Amendment is unique in referring to Congress. The logical evaluation of this is that, the Federal Government is prohibited form enacting such laws, but the individual States are free to impose such restrictions. It is also clear, at least to me, from the Founders writings, that they did not consider the United States to be a single nation, but a union composed of several Sovereign States.

  38. Harry Says:

    As interesting as the Blackstone Idea is we really don’t need to worry about Blackstone or Vattel because our Forefathers wrote into the Constitution the differences. Which will take priority over that type of subjective reasoning.
    We are just not looking in the correct place for it.

    You can find the meaning of Natural Born Citizen here.
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_3

    This was sloppily removed from our Constitution in haste to try to remove a section of the Constitution that dealt with equality between races ect. in the 60′s. In our hurry to correct this situation, legislators removed the entire section of the Constitution instead of altering it to make it read as equal rights for all. Yet the definition of Natural-Born is still there as it was meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

    Look for this part:
    “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. 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”

    Since a general can not govern a specific by code, we see in that case that there is a difference between the citizen statuses as it was understood by the writers of the Constitution. Furthermore within that text is a definition of the difference. It need not apply to that instance as it was a specific term (natural-born) applied to a general term (Citizen). This Clearly defines the difference between the terms and sets a standard by which we can use to determine the real meaning of the specific terminology.

    Since code dictates that a general term can never control a specific we know that to be a “Natural Born Citizen” you are required to have a father that has been a resident of the U.S.A.

    Since Obamas father was never a resident. We can clearly see that Obama was not eligible.

    Trying to cloud the issue can not work in this situation. The text is very clear.

  39. Peggy Says:

    This just might make your day a little brighter!!

    Those, who worry about democrats versus republicans — relax, here is our real problem.

    In a Purdue University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple. The candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35 years of age. However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen.

    In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president. The class was taking it in and letting her rant, and not many jaws hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating,

    “What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-section?”

    Yep, this is an example of the same kind of 18-year-olds that are now attending our institutions of higher learning and are of legal voting age that are participating in our elections!

  40. Capt-Dax Says:

    What amazes me most is even those I consider intelligent can read the quotes from Congress and SCOTUS rulings etc. and still will argue with what those words mean.

    Folks it honestly is not ROCKET SCIENCE.

    It is simply fact … read the quotes for yourself.

    Just because no one in politics or the media is dealing with any of this?

    None of that ALTERS THE FACTS OR CHANGES what our founders defined this term to mean.

    HERE THEY ARE AGAIN 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.”

    This is straight forward FACT.

    To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN … you must be born in the country and your parents must BOTH BE CITIZENS.

    BOTH REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET!

    PARENTS can be born citizens or naturalized
    (naturalized at the time of the child’s birth).

    If both requirements are not met the child can still be a “US citizen” just not “natural born”.

    No matter how anyone slices, dices or ginsus it Barack Obama has painted himself in a corner with his released Birth Certificate (be it real or fraud).

    His father NEVER WAS A US CITIZEN.

    For sure he does not meet the “natural born” requirement.
    His US citizenship is iffy should his Hawaiian BC turn out to be a fraud.

    Now to further hammer nails into the coffin lid of the Constitution
    comes Mitt Romney.

    Here is further information just sent my way on his parentage and their citizenship.

    … my research SHOWS NO REPATRIATION OR NATURALIZATION of George Romney.

    That does not mean there is none … it does however cast serious problems into the cogs of what appears to be a well oiled Mitt Romney campaign for President machine.

  41. John Hardman Says:

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.
    Obama has been able to conceal the fact that He is actually an illegal alien from Indonesia, with the help of co-conspiritors like Nancy Pelosi (who provided fraudulent vetting documents).
    I predict that a “Forced” Congressional Trial will uncover an on-going conspircy to overthrow our Republic, and replace it with a Marxist Communism Nightmare; just like every other failed Communist experiment in history.God Bless that Courageous Georgia Judge that had the backbone to hear this case…God Bless our National Heroine Orly Taitz for Her dogged determination to expose Obama for the fraudulent Usurper He is. God Bless all those who helped in this critical
    court case…and of course GOD BLESS AMERICA and all PATRIOTIC CITIZENS.

  42. Lloyd Says:

    Seriously????

    Following this logic then anyone born in this country who has great great grandfather or grandmother who was not a citizen by your definition is not a citizen, I thiink that pretty much makes two thirds of the population of this country illegal????

    Seriously?????

  43. admin Says:

    Lloyd…Natural Born should require that at the time of a person’s birth, both parents be US Citizens.

  44. Dave Says:

    Lloyd – My great great great grandparents immigrated to this country where they birthed my great great grandfather and great great grandmother. Those born here became “citizens” by birth – not “natural born citizens”, but citizens nonetheless. As citizens, their children, if born in the US would be “natural born citizens”. So your argument that 2/3 of the population is illegal is bogus. Anyone born in the US to parents who are both citizens of the US is a “natural born citizen” and eligible to hold the office of president.

  45. DTHoppe Says:

    The problem is not what defines a Natural born citizen. The problem is the rule in The Law of Nations 1758. It defined a Natural born citizen by the father’s country. Of course in 1758, women did not get children in a divorce either. That didn’t happen until 1912. Anyone want to try to make that argument today?

    So if anyone wants to argue that the Father determines the citizenship of a child and the mother does not. Good luck with that one. Which is exactly what this author is trying to do. If you want to say it takes both parents, again you will have a problem, for clearly the law of nations decided that one was enough, and amendments to the constitution decided that women have the same rights. Further beings how she had legal custody of her child,
    Good luck making a legal argument to deny any US citizen the right to give birth to a US citizen. No matter where your rear-end sits on this planet, you have the legal right to a US consulate providing the US has any legal right to be there.

    Though either way it no way diminishes your rights as a US citizen, just the ability to enforce the rights. We can see this today in the middle east, where foolish people go to foreign lands understanding they have their rights as US citizens, but the enforcement does not follow, so on your tombstone it will say,” the US Government disagrees with the country killing you and fully supports your rights….. over here.”.

    So to sum it up, In order for Obama to not be a US citizen, would be for his Mother who had legal custody to have given up her citizenship in a legal manner as which this country recognizes.

    Also being born here on US soil does not make you a US citizen, one must be subject to the jurisdiction, meaning allegiance to. So at least one parent needs to be a US citizen.

  46. motownmutt Says:

    Interesting comments by esq. Oakes. I haven’t looked at this subject in months, so am rusty on the particulars, but if I might.

    esq. Oakes states that there only two classes of citizens, natural born, and naturalized.

    Naturalized are encouraged to take the oath of allegiance, which includes renouncing allegiance to all other countries. I don’t think the oath is mandatory, or strictly enforced, so there is the possibility of dual citizenship.

    If there are only two classes, dual citizenship must fall within naturalized, although it remains distinct from someone who has renounced foreign allegiances.

    Allegiance seems to me, at least, to be at the core of the intent in the eligibility clause.

    It seems Natural that someone born and raised in a particular place and culture by parents of that place and culture would have ties to them that someone else wouldn’t. That seems to be at the heart of the indisputable interpretation of Natural Born.

    There seems to be pre-Constitution writings alluding to a desire to limit foreign influence in our Executive position. The eligibility clause exists for a reason. It doesn’t seem Natural that the authors meant to include “born of a foreign parent who never was, nor intended to become, a citizen”, for example. The clause is exclusive, not inclusive.

  47. Edd Allen Says:

    Obama should have been removed from the office of president already, I have heard that he has spent millions to keep his information under wraps.

    I fully believe he is a muslim and that he hates this country, why I do not know but I think he is not trustworthy and is a dreadful threat to this country.

  48. CJ O'Connor Says:

    Where there is SMOKE, there is FIRE… Regardless of all the Pro and Con legal arguments, President Obama’s proper citizenship has always been and still remains unquestionably in doubt for most Americans. I don’t understand why he spends millions of dollars hiding his history and keeping many other facts about him a secret. It’s time for him to come out of his closet and be truthful with America. Until he does, he leaves all of us no other choice but to believe that he is hiding some extremely important and seriously damaging facts about his hidden past. All anyone wants and deserves from our President is the TRUTH.

  49. PWMoore Says:

    Where exactly was Barack Obama born?

  50. PWMoore Says:

    motownmutt,
    Wasn’t Barack Obama’s mother a citizen of the State of Kansas?
    If we follow your logic, a child born of a US diplomat and a citzen of, say, Kenya, would not be an American citizen even though the one parent was in Kenya representing the interests of the USA.
    Nonsense.
    Dual citizenship, at least.

  51. kkflash Says:

    @dthoppe
    In the context of the modern USA, in which more than half of marriages end in divorce, and courts overwhelmingly award custody of children to mothers over fathers, your statement that citizenship of only one parent should qualify a child born in this country to be considered “natural born” makes greater sense than in Vatel’s time. However, we should ask whether the framers of the Constitution intended to protect the security of the country by limiting eligibility for the highest office in the land to only those whose sole allegiance to the USA could not be questioned. Certainly, a dual citizen by birth or other means, carries inherent conflicts of allegiance that might be acceptable in an ordinary citizen, but not in the POTUS. Likewise, a child born here, and raised by parents who are not both citizens, would necessarily have some conflicts of loyalty to the countries of each of the parents. Again, perhaps not a disqualifying condition for citizenship, but a dangerous condition for the POTUS. I believe our founding fathers intended to eliminate such conflicts of loyalty in a POTUS, and thus would have required both parents to be citizens for a child to be considered a “natural born” citizen.

    Another interesting eligibility question brought about by the condition of our times: Would a child born in the USA to a citizen mother where paternity is unknown be considered a natural born citizen? Lord knows we have a great many of those in the modern USA, and someday one of these may be seeking the presidency.

  52. The Southern Gentleman Says:

    From what I have read so far it appears the those who want more of what is going on in our government to continue so putting us into deeper debt and giving away to those who refuse to work more money to live freely with out contributing to the government in the first place.
    Those who want to see it get heard in court seem to me be the ones who are being asked to pay for everything the government wants with out question.
    Personally I have worked all my life and received Unemployment for all of 6 months maybe 20 years ago or more. But I wanted to get a job as soon as possible and I did find work.
    Personally I am a natural born citizen by the laws of the Land as I read them from the excerps. Both of my parents were born here in the United States as was their parents. I was born in a hospital here in New Orleans in 46. You notice I said both Parents and not just one but both for at least 3 generations.
    Oh I have my original birth certificate and not a scanned copy placed on the internet and then copied to a piece of paper as one person has done to prove his citizenship.
    Nuff said