Texas My Texas

Senate Proves Obama Is Ineligible

Senate Proves Obama Is Ineligible

2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

definition : The natives, or natural-born citizens, are

those born in the country, of [ parentS] who are citizenS.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

Congress tried to settle McCains Natural Born status by passing a resolution….

In doing so they, have proven Obama is ineligible to be POTUS. High lighted about 15 times parentS or citizenS

[plural ]

(both parentS  must be citizenS  of the U.S.)

Obama Sr. was not.

Obama says “same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

April 30, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3645
JOHN S. MCCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar
No. 715, S. Res 511.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 511) recognizing that
John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are considering a bipartisan resolution to express the common sense of all in this Chamber that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ as the term is used in the Constitution of the United
States. Last week the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report this resolution to the Senate. I urge Senators to come together to pass this bipartisan resolution without delay. Our Constitution contains three requirements
for a person to be eligible to be President—the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator MCCAIN is of sufficient years on this Earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. ‘‘However, some have raised the question whether he is a ‘‘natural born citizen’’ because he was born outside of the United States. JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III, was born to American citizenS on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was serving in the Navy at that time. It is possible that at the time of our Nation’s founding, the Framers of our Constitution could not imagine how pronounced our commitments overseas would become but it would make no sense to limit the careers of children born to military families simply because they were stationed overseas. Similarly, it would not make sense to punish children born to foreign service families or Ambassadors stationed overseas or children born overseas to American missionaries. They are all American citizens at the time of their birth.

Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has discovered any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to AmericanS or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizenS anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
It is interesting to note that another previous Presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona. Certainly those who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. Because he was born to American citizenS, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe also analyzed the issue and came to the same conclusion—that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President.
Our bipartisan resolution would make it clear that Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 on an American Naval base to U.S. citizenS, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen. We should act today on a bipartisan basis to erase any doubt that Senator MCCAIN is eligible to run for President because of his citizenship status. I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator
John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible
to hold the office of President.
Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pursuant to a request received from the staff of your Committee,
I enclose for your and your Committee’s consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a natural-born citizen eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parent[S], in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
THEODORE B. OLSON.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office of President.
Hon. ARLEN SPECTER,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR SPECTER: Pursuant to a request received from Democratic Committee staff, I enclose for your consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a ‘‘natural born citizen’’ eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parentS in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
THEODORE B. OLSON.
MARCH 19, 2008.
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only ‘‘natural born Citizen[s] . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.’’ U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parentS who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice. The Constitution does not define the meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen.’’ The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783,
790–91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase ‘‘natural born’’ includes both birth abroad to parentS who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen because he was born to parentSwho were U.S. citizens. Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73–250, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such
children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as ‘‘natural born citizens.’’
Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104. Senator McCain’s status as a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parentS is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for
example, that children born abroad to parentS who were ‘‘natural-born Subjects’’ were also ‘‘natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.’’
British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word
‘‘citizen’’ for ‘‘subject’’ to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34– 35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were ‘‘natural born’’ citizens.
fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.
There is a second and independent basis for concluding that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen under the well-established principle that ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655–66. The Fourteenth Amendmentexpressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1

(‘‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. * * * ’’) (emphases added). Premising ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown—including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies—were deemed ‘‘natural born subjects.’’ See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (‘‘Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king.* * * ’’). There is substantial legal support for the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, ‘‘[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the surrounding10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.’’

0’Connor v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986).Congress and the executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See,e.g., The President—Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 113, 116 (1907)

(recognizing that the 1904 treaty between the United States and Panama ‘‘imposed upon the United States the obligations as well as the powers of a sovereign within the [Canal Zone]’’); Panama Canal Act of 1912, Pub. L. No. 62–337, § 1, 37 Stat. 560, 560 (recognizing that ‘‘the use, occupancy, or control’’ of the Canal Zone had been ‘‘granted to the United States by the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama’’). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within a State, there is a significant body of legal authority indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign territory of the United States.

Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 5, 1860—one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964.
[ webmasters memo : but he was never elected ]

And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961—not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
[ webmaster memo:…….. but both parents were NOT citizens  of the U.S. …. He was born a British subject ( stated by Obama himself ). There is no doubt that Obama has allegiance to Kenya… he put before the Senate a bill to tax Americas 7% so as to give to other countries. Wonder what country he had in mind ?]   http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that [every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of [ parentS ] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]”
– Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment
http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787]

Senator McCains candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about ‘‘Foreigners’’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). [ webmaster memo:….Obama has allegiance to Kenya…] It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical ‘‘Foreigner’’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief. Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parentS who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ within the meaning of the Constitution.

LAURENCE H. TRIBE .
THEODORE B. OLSON.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to,the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so rdered. The resolution (S. 511) was agreed to. The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:

. 511 Whereas the Constitution of the Unitedof the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1,
is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit
the constitutional rights of children born to AmericanS serving in the military nor to
prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; [ webmasters memo : there is a  grandfather clause that allowed the framers of the Constitution to run for President, never to be applied after their passing.  I assume no NATURAL BORN citizens were old enough at the time to run for president.

Let me make another point : What was the need for the Grandfather clause ? Why even have a grandfather clause if this  was not their intent.] and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:
Now, therefore, be itResolved,
That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II,Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

____________________________________________

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

definition : The natives, or natural-born citizens, are

those born in the country, of [ parentS ] who are citizens.

tranglenotnbc1

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England.”
Circuit Justice Swayne
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

“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 [ webmaster memo:……..Obama amits he was a Brittish subject passed on the him by his father…. He was born a British subject ( stated by Obama himself ). ] 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.”
“Law of Nations” Book One, Chapter 19, 212

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm

-stated on Barack Obama’s website:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

citizens1

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

WAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162
Minor v. Happersett

Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parentS who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

http://thelibertypole.ning.com/

_____________________________________________________________________

Obamas own words:

FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.

[Update in red below 10:25AM]

The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history.  One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.

I can understand such reliance.  The passage below has been confusing for me as well.  Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief.  I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.

However, it finally became clear today.  The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.  Here’s the infamous passage:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.  His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens.  And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters.  But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.

Have another look:

“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

–  he compares two children

– on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

Do you see the difference?

He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

He says that both are citizens.  But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.  So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.  

Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

But that’s not what they said.

– By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

– But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.

– This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship.  For example, not all natural born citizens can be President.  Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

Here’s the final holding of the case:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)

This is the core holding of the case.  It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen.  The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said.  But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.

My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President.  His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen.  His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.

This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court.  Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President.  But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.

I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command.  The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.

SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.

I personally don’t care who the President is anymore.  I’ll never care again.  Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this.  It doesn’t matter who the President is.  We’ll still be at war.  We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss.  We do get fooled again.  Everytime.  But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes…  Goodbye Ms. American Pie.

[ webmasters memo : there is a  grandfather clause that allowed the framers of the Constitution to run for President, never to be applied after their passing.  I assume no NATURAL BORN citizens were old enough at the time to run for president.Let me make another point : What was the need for the Grandfather clause ? Why even have a grandfather clause if this  was not their intent.]

a person belongs is by the law of nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost as universal rule that the citizenship of
the parents determines it— that of the father where the children are lawful, and where they are bastards, that of the mother,
without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence
dependent on descent. Foundlings must, of course, constitute an exception to this rule; they belong to the State in which they
are found.”
And the same principle is affirmed by Savigny.1 ” Citizenship,” says he, ” indicates birth in a legal marriage where the
father himself has the right of citizenship. ILLegitimate children acquire by origio citizenship in the native place of the mother.”
This rule of international law that the political status of the father is impressed upon the child where legitimate, and that of
the mother where illegitimate, is found in reason and established according to the dictates of sound policy. As stated by Vattel: 2
” By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their father and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces
no change in this particular, and can not of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.”
Generally no nation considers as aliens the children of its citizens or subjects born abroad; but, on the contrary, they are deemed
to be citizens or subjects. Now, should the common-law rule prevail in such country where such children are born, it is evident
that there would arise an immediate conflict between the place of birth and the country of the father, which might lead to very serious
consequences. Inasmuch as the country where such persons were born claims as citizens or subjects persons born abroad whose
fathers were citizens or subjects at the time of such birth, it should, upon principle, reciprocally recognize the right of a foreign nation
to claim as citizen or
1 Savigny on Private International 2 Vattel’s Law of Nations, sect. 215.
Law, sect. 851.

subjects the children born abroad whose fathers at the time of such birth citizens or subjects of such foreign nation.
The common-law rule making every person born within the limits of a nation, or rather within the power and
obedience of the sovereign, a citizen thereof, is manifestly impolitic. The Chinese, for instance, are a people foreign
to us in every respect; they have resided amongst us for upwards of thirty years, and during the whole of that time
have rigidly adhered to the peculiar customs, habits and methods of their forefathers. Although all this time surrounded
by American civilization itn has wholly failed to make any impression upon them; they segregate themselves from the
mass of people and establish a colony according to Oriental ideas in order that they may live in a manner similar to
those in China; the are antagonistic to our civilization; know nothing and refuse to know anything of our institutions
and are utterly incapable of self-government; they do not come here animus manendi, but as soon as the obtain a
competency, either by their labor or otherwise, the return to their native land to enjoy it. Their children born American
soil are Chinese form their very birth in all respects, just as much so as though they had been born and reared in China;
they inherit the same prejudices, the same customs, habits, and methods of their ancestors; in short, they are subject
to the same civilization and adhere to it with as much tenacity as did their forefathers.
Now it is evident that such persons are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the important privileges of an
American citizen, a title which it was aim of out ancestors to make as proud as the king; and yet under the commom-law
rule they would be citizens.
Again, to consider as a citizen a child born here and who only resided here the first five or six years of his life and
whose father was an alien and always remained such is manifestly contrary to the dictates of sound policy. In order to the
naturalization of his father we justly require of five years prior to his admission to citizenship. As remarked by
Chancellor Kent, 1 ” A moderate previous residence becomes material to enable
12 Kent Com, 29.

aliens to acquire the knowledge and habits proper to make good citizens, who can combine the spirit of freedom with a love
of the law. Strangers, on their first arrival, and before they have had time to acquire property and form connections and attach-
ments, are not to be presumed to be acquainted with our political institutions, or to fell pride or zeal in their stability and success.”
We also require a declaration to be made at least two years prior ti his admission to citizenship, that it is his bona fide intention
to become a citizen and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,
and particularly to the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. He must also
have resided within the territory, where the court admitting him is held, for the period of one year prior to his admission, when
he must take oath that he will support the constitution, and that he absolutely renounces all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state or sorereignty to which he ownes
allegiance. It must also appear to the court admitting him that he is a man of good moral character,attached to the principles
of the constitution and disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and yet in respect to his child, who is just as much
an alien as his father, we would, under the common-law, consider him a citizen without naturalization.”
If the common-law rule were to prevail in this country the policy adopted by Congress in respect to the admission of
foreigners to citizenship would be defeated; Congress has seen fit to confine the privilege of becoming a American citizen to the
Caucasains and African races; yet under the common-law rule the children of all persons, irrespective of race, who were born
within the United States would be citizens.
The evils which result from an indiscriminate admission of foreigners into the body politic are well exemplified by the action
of Caracalla, who ” for the purpose of a more extened taxation leveled all distinctions and communicated the freedom of the
city to the whole Roman world.” As a consequence, the pride of country and the observance of honor which characterized
the Roman ctitzen became extinguished and was no longer felt.
We will revert to the case of Lynch v. Clarke. The vice-chancellor, in commenting upon the rule as stated by Mr. Dana. 1 that if an Amercian
citizen goes to England and marries a woman who is an alien and has issue born in England, that that issue is not an alein, but a citizen
of the United States, abd that, upon the same principle, if an English subject, comes into the United States and marries a woman is an
Amercican, and has a child by her, born here, it can not inherit here, because the child folloes the allegiance of its father, says:
” This is manifestly a non-sequitur, because, in the first case put, the child, if born in England og an American father, unquestionably owes
allegiance in England, . is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States, also.
( An embarrassing position to be in. ) And by the same rule, the child born here, of the English father, is a citizen, and may inherit as in England.”
The vice-chancellar is thus compelled to admit the absurd, untenable, and now exploded, doctirne of double allegiance.2
The vice-chancellar was laboring under a misapprehension when he stated that , in order to avert an imaginary evil which he contends the
rule of international law produces, to wit, the perpetuation of a “race of aliens,” the doctrine of elestion was resorted to; that is, that the child,
upon arriving at majority, would have a right to elect as his country either the place of his birth, or the country of his father. This doctrine has
never had a place in international law; but has prevailed, if it does not now prevail, in those countries where the common-law
rule, or a rule similar to it, existed; thus, ” England and Portugal the child of an alien, born therein, is English or Portuguese, but he may
elect ti recur to his nationality of parentage,” 3
14 dana’s abridgment, 701, ch. 131, 2 See Ludlum v. Ludlum, 81 Barb.
art. 2, sect. 8. 417; Rev. Stats. U. S. , sect. 1999
3 Hall on International Law, sect. 08.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so far as it relates to this question, and which is but declaratory
of the principles of international law, is as follows : —— ”
All persons born, or naturalized, in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The phrase in the above section ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not mean territorial jurisdiction, as has been held in some
cases, 1 but means national jurisdiction; that is the jurisdiction which a nation possesses ove those who are its citizens or subjects as such.
The phrase as used in the consitution was intended to have a negative opertation; that this is true, and that territorial jurisdiction was not
meant, is evident from section 1992,2 which is a part of section 1, of what is known as the ” Civil Rights Bill,” and which was enacted by the
same Congress which framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution; that section is as follows
” All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign powers, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be
citizens of the United States,” As before stated, generally every nation claims as a citizen or subject the child born abroad whose
father was at the time of such birth a citizen or subject of the country making such claim; and this is supposted by the principle of
international law before referred to. Now, it is obvious that such child would be subject to a foreign power, to wit, the
country of his father, which of course would exclude him from being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
In conclusion in the Slaughter House Cases. 8 in reference to the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment
before referred to, and which is decisive of the question ” the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude
from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
1 McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer, 129; 2 Rev. Stat. U.S.
Spencer v. Board, 1 McArthur, 177 3 16 Wall. 78.

Birth,therefore,does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essentail in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen
of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate,
that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
George D. Collins

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: