Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Constitution recognizes two and only two forms of citizenship. Born citizens and naturalized citizens.
Quite clearly, the Constitution recognizes a subset of born citizens, hence the "natural born citizen" requirement. Otherwise, the Constitution would merely say "born citizen." It does not.
He confirmed the meaning of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause. Note in the Congressional Record that no one disagreed with his statement.
I remembered reading where that was not actually true, and in a few moments of searching was able to find it.
Educating the Confused – 14th Amendment and Bingham | Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored (http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/educating-the-confused-14th-amendment-and-bingham/ - broken link)
Quote:
Clearly the opinion of one congressman 79 years after the federal convention is not worth much weight with respect to the original understanding of the Constitution. This is particularly the case when multiple members of the same 39th Congress, as well as a multitude of other earlier authority discussed throughout this brief, contradict him and there is no evidence any other Congressman in such Congress agreed with him.
For example, Rep. Wilson, the house judiciary committee chairman of such Congress, declared that “natural born citizen” was defined by the English common law, citing, amongst others, Blackstone and Rawle. Id. at 1115-17 (1866). Senator Morrill made clear that “natural born citizen” status is given by birth itself. Id. at ___. Senator Henderson, id. at pg. 387, Senator Davis, see, The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877), and Rep. Rep. Boutwell, see, Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913) all stated that the president must be native born. Senator Trumbull, author of the Civil Rights Act, also stated the president must be native born and made clear that “natural born citizen” should be defined in accordance with the English common. Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872).
Quite clearly, the Constitution recognizes a subset of born citizens, hence the "natural born citizen" requirement. Otherwise, the Constitution would merely say "born citizen." It does not.
It does not recognize any such thing. You are forgetting the first rule of Constitutional hermeneutics:
"The Constitution does not mean what it does not say."
It never says anywhere that there are any subsets of "born citizen."
From the New Englander and Yale Review, precurser to the Yale Review:
Quote:
The expression 'citizen of the United States' occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term 'natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word 'citizen' is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws.
Oooh... perhaps you should have waited to post a response that was debunked by the immediately preceding post.
But as to "never disputed by the courts," ...
Have you forgotten Wong Kim Ark so quickly?
He was ruled a citizen, not a natural born citizen.
Note the ruling:
Quote:
The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal.
Obama is thus explicity excluded as eligible for President as he had British citizenship at birth.
Ignoring that your reference is from an obscure law review and not from any actual law or court decision, you are changing your argument again. Yo have gone from the "two citizen parent" argument to the equally specious but completely different "no dual citizenship" argument.
The US Constitution tells us what a President must be. It never says what a President must not be. There is not and never has been a law on any American books that prohibits dual citizens from being President, as long as one of those citizenships is natural born American.
I've supplied NUMEROUS links to support what I've posted. None of it is made up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
