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.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (I think) of the U.S. Constitution.
A child of a two American citizens who is born on U.S. soil is eligible to be President.
Your talking about this Article II Clause 5?
"Clause 5: 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."
"...they said, in their holding that Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen”. They never said he was a “natural born citizen.” They could have said that but they didn’t. Furthermore, in Justice Gray’s discussion of the “Minor” case, it was explained that a NBC [natural born citizen] was a person born in the U.S. to parents(plural - meaning both parents) who were(verb - plural use vs singular use) citizens(plural - meaning both)…"
Although this case reference the 14th amendment, the term "both parents" could not be found in the decision. This case occured during the 1800's about 18 years after the 14th amendment was ratified to protect former slaves. The gentleman's parents were originally from China. In 1882, a few years after Wong's birth, there was a Chinese Exclusion law that was drafted by Congress, needless to say, it was overturned because of the 14th amendment. In essence, Wong was "natrualized citizen of the united states by the end of that court case.
This court case was a good example, but not for what you were arguing. The Supreme Court ruled that a person born in the United States no matter their parents birth, were natrualized citizens.
There is no precedent to support Kooter's view. Precedent supports being born in US makes one a natural born citizen. The birthers misread the cases and rewrite the Constitution in their minds to support their needs.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum. Not only is hcgCali correct, there are also several presidents and VPs whose parent or parents were not US citizens. (VPs must meet the same qualifications as the presidents, as they may become president.) One VP had a mother who was a Native American, and at the time of this man's vice presidency, not even eligible to become a citizen. All this stuff can be found by doing a CD search.
Although this case reference the 14th amendment, the term "both parents" could not be found in the decision. This case occured during the 1800's about 18 years after the 14th amendment was ratified to protect former slaves. The gentleman's parents were originally from China. In 1882, a few years after Wong's birth, there was a Chinese Exclusion law that was drafted by Congress, needless to say, it was overturned because of the 14th amendment. In essence, Wong was "natrualized citizen of the united states by the end of that court case.
This court case was a good example, but not for what you were arguing. The Supreme Court ruled that a person born in the United States no matter their parents birth, were natrualized citizens.
I agree. My understanding of the ruling is that a child born in the U.S. to two non-citizens is a "citizen at birth."
How that means that Obama, a person in born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen, is not a "citizen at birth" makes no sense to me.
Although this case reference the 14th amendment, the term "both parents" could not be found in the decision. This case occured during the 1800's about 18 years after the 14th amendment was ratified to protect former slaves. The gentleman's parents were originally from China. In 1882, a few years after Wong's birth, there was a Chinese Exclusion law that was drafted by Congress, needless to say, it was overturned because of the 14th amendment. In essence, Wong was "natrualized citizen of the united states by the end of that court case.
This court case was a good example, but not for what you were arguing. The Supreme Court ruled that a person born in the United States no matter their parents birth, were natrualized citizens.
In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
” ‘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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
You have Justice Gray citing the court in Minor who are themselves citing the “Laws of Nations” definition (they didn’t directly cite that treatise but the definition used is taken therefrom) of natural born citizen = person born in US to “citizen parents” = NBC.
In Minor, they clearly established who was a “natural born citizen” beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Obama. As to persons born in the US to foreign parents they said, as directly quoted in Wong Kim Ark by Justice Gray, “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.“
Just so i understand this entire argument, Someone born in the United States is not a "natural born citizen" if their parents were not born here as well?
You miss the point entirely....the issue is whether or not he WAS born in the US.
Read the whole thread through. Read the links. Avail yourself of all the information about his issue, and you'll see that his place of birth is what the turmoil is all about.
Then realize that all he has to do is to release, not just a VALID BC, but ALL his records, which, taken together, would end the speculation and suspicion once and for all. The fact that he not only hasn't, but is aggressively fighting all efforts to release his records, only feeds the suspicion that's he's trying to hide something.
Personally, if he were to release the documents that conclusively prove he's qualified, under the Constitution, I'd accept that he's legitimate. Until he does, I and millions of others will remain suspicious of him.
Natural born is A STATE, and the state of "natural born citizen" is arrived at by through certain conditions and Vattel references those conditions here directly:
§ 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.
Natural born is A STATE, and the state of "natural born citizen" is arrived at by through certain conditions and Vattel references those conditions here directly:
§ 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.
Kootr, I guess what i'm trying to understand or get you to pinpoint is where in the constitution does it state what you are referencing. You keep going back to cases that have been overturned by the Supreme Court that referenced the 14th amendment.
What i'm hearing is (which is very dangerous in my opinion) there should be a amendment to the constitution to provide the Twenty-first century definition of "naturalize citizen" too what make the President ineligible? So no matter if one parent was born in the united states and the other from Germany, your saying that child is not a natural born citizen of the united states?
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.
pm
