Naturally

 A natural-born citizen is an individual who is naturally born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

According to Presbo.  Who sponsored and voted for passage of Senate Resolution 511.  Senate Resolution 511 explicitly states that a candidate for U.S. President is a Natural-born citizen definitively and exclusively because he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens.  This resolution was debated and passed unanimously by Congress paving to way to avoid any conflict and  approving the eligibility of Republican candidate, John McCain, during the 2008 election campaign.

So why has this not caused any problems for Presbo, who was born to a person who was never a citizen of the United States?  Can’t apply laws in the United States retroactively.  But that still leaves him a problem with the November election, where his Senate Resolution appears to have made him disqualified.

Advertisements

About drrik

3rd career and 2nd childhood. Spends spare time repairing old things. Aspires to burn more gasoline, gunpowder, and ink in pursuit of slowing down. Child of the 60s and aspiring student of history. No desire to see us repeat the failed social experiments that keep failing for lack of human beings that meet the left wing standards and have to be killed off. Did engineering long enough to realize that very little is new and the wheel does not need to be reinvented.
This entry was posted in election, mainstream media, Obama. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Naturally

  1. EllenHancock says:

    Re: ” A natural-born citizen is an individual who is naturally born within the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.”

    Who told you that? It is wrong. The Senate resolution you referred to said that McCain was both born to two citizen parents AND born on US territory, a US Naval Base. Simply birth on US territory would be sufficient, however.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition NOTICE the OR.

    The original meaning of Natural Born Citizen used in AMERICA at the time that the original US Constitution was written referred to citizenship due to the place of birth. ONLY the place of birth. Not the parents. Only the place of birth.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    Here is an example of how the term Natural Born Citizen was used at around the time that the Constitution went into effect, in 1803:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, there is no mention of parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within a state.” And here is how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    That’s just a few of the opinions, which stem from the key US Supreme Court ruling, Wong Kim Ark, which ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is Natural Born.

    And there have been LOTS of lower-court rulings, all stemming from the Wong Kim Ark ruling, which have stated that the US-born children of foreigners are Natural Born Citizens, due to their natural birth, birth in America.

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    AND there was Ankeny v. Gov State of Indiana, which ruled:

    “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.”

  2. drrik says:

    Interesting.
    An alternative take postulated by JBWilliams who writes for Canada Free Press and that seems to have more validity goes as follows:
    ‘History answers the question of what “natural born citizen” means, and leaves NO wiggle room for debate or wishful agenda-driven interpretations.

    The term was first used by the British Royal family. The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.

    Native is a term relative to geography, where a person is at the time of birth. This issue came up as a challenge to John McCain during his 2008 bid for the White House, as he was born “off base” at a local hospital in Panama while his father was stationed on a Navy base in Panama.

    As a diversionary tactic to lead obvious questions away from Barack Hussein Obama, some challenged McCain’s “natural born” status as a presidential candidate on the basis that he was not “native born” on US soil, or on US territory, the US Naval Base in Panama. Congress, therefore, passed a resolution proclaiming McCain a “natural born citizen” on the basis that he was the “natural born” son of two US citizens, more specifically, the natural born son of a US Naval Commander.

    However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama, and here’s why;

    The term “native” relates to the geographic location of birth. But the term “natural” relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.

    The term “natural born citizen” next appears in the Law of Nations, a treaty between nations which established certain universal standards, one of which being the term “natural born citizen.”

    The related passage from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations reads as follows;

    “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.”

    Note the following text—“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.”

    Further clarification—“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 the final blow to Barack Hussein Obama—“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.”

    The subject of “natural law” found in the Law of Nations is entirely consistent with the Royal British purpose of the term “natural born citizen.” It keeps the family bloodline intact on the basis of the father’s blood, aka “natural law.” It is the source from which our nation’s Founding Fathers entered those words into the US Constitution, under Article II—Section I—Clause V;”

    Back atcha.

  3. pepperhawk says:

    drrik,
    Oh dear I see you have Ellen on your site. She came to mine and I finally black listed her. It became an unendurable argument that would never stop.
    This is so ironic about this bill. And, yes, how does this not effect the Fraud in the WH? Nobody will touch it. It’s all over the Internet now, everywhere, in every nook and cranny about his birth. But, the media continues to have a black out no matter how many people have studied the b/c he presented and proved it a forgery. I assume it’s because he’s black that no one will do a thing about this scam on the American people. Besides the globalists who want to keep him in place to do the final destruction of our country.

    • drrik says:

      Going to hold out and try to engage. She should be at elast useful to see what the cut and paste talking points are that are being generated on the liberal websites, that I tend to not keep up with. I got tired of the left-wing slant at Huffpo and quit looking there. Last few times that I have gone there it seems that they are not quite so rabidly, stupidly lib-prog so perhaps Ms. Huffington has wised up a little that she could actually do a better job of balancing the new since Fox has abandoned the slot. Or she has realized that they will have little use for her in the owned news of the new utopia and that she would end up having to go back to really working for a living. So maybe Ellen will bring something useful. Entertaining to think that she is spending time on this. Means I have made the Ghandian transition up from being ignored to the step of being ridiculed and attacked.

      • pepperhawk says:

        drrik,
        How generous of you to engage Ellen. I have to say I got pretty sick and tired when I was on Townhall of the liberals and the convoluted arguments. But, go for it. You might have fun with it. You can give her a run for her money anyway. Just hope you don’t get hit with Questionman. Or have you? He’s way out there. Blasting and raving at us for being such awful racists. I bumped him off too. Couldn’t take the bad language in a comment that was about a foot long. 😀
        Even Arianna Huffington said on TV that she thought it was depraved to use the bin laden kill as a political football. I was shocked out of my mind, and I’m already half way
        there anyway.
        I noticed too that HuffPO has become less nasty and they are actually allowing conservatives on there to comment. Shocked once again. I don’t visit there often just once in awhile to keep up with the progressive agenda and what may be down the road.

  4. EllenHancock says:

    Re: “However, no such resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama…”

    For the obvious reason that there was no need to. Everyone knew that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.

    Re Vattel:

    There is absolutely no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel, who had recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it (and we certainly did not adopt that ) and not the meaning of Natural Born in the common law—which was by far the most common meaning. If the writers of the Constitution had meant to adopt a meaning that was unusual, not the one that they had been using for years and that everyone understood, they would have said something like: “two citizen parents are required,” or “we are adopting the Vattel meaning.” But there is nothing like that, and Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers (while the common law is mentioned about twenty times).

    The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (six to two, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel), and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats. And, as can see from above, Meese (Ronald Reagan’s attorney general agrees). So did the US Electoral College (not even one member changed his or her vote) and the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election unanimously.

    • drrik says:

      You left out part. In the Wong Kim rulling, the Supreme Court actually didn’t just claim citizenship for anchoir babies. Their verbage was pretty explicit:
      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.”

      So it appears that they had done a qualification that it had to incude “parent-suh”, ie more than one, and that that parent thing was an inclusive part of determining the natural born thing.
      Meese was an idiot.

      • drrik says:

        The Wong Kim case had other criteria that Presbo didn’t meet. Re the parents could be foreign nationals “but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity “. The claimed Barrack Obama Senior didn’t fulfill that. Now if communist Frank Davis was the real daddy, then that is another horse.

      • drrik says:

        The Wong Kim court was not unanimously on its final opinion:

        Dissenting Opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Chief Justice Fuller objected to the idea that the only thing “natural born” ever meant in the first place was that the individual in question was born on U.S. soil: “[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”

        Just because they had a Supreme Court majority doesn’t make it right. Only legal.

  5. drrik says:

    Anchor-baby citizenship is a relatively recent and questionable affectation.

  6. EllenHancock says:

    Re: ““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.”

    You have said that that was from the Wong Kim Ark case. You are wrong. It is from the Minor vs Happersett case, which was before Wong Kim Ark. Later cases overturn earlier cases, and the Wong Kim Ark ruling said:

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

    That quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law, not from Vattel. And it says that EVEREY child born in the USA (except for the children of foreign diplomats) is Natural Born. And it says that the same rule that applied in England applied in the colonies and in the early states–and under the US Constitution.

    Re: “Just because they had a Supreme Court majority doesn’t make it right. Only legal.”

    Thank you for admitting that it is indeed the law. You would like it not to be the law? Well write to your congressman and senators and maybe they can pass a Constitutional Amendment redefining Natural Born status. But until then, it is the law. That is why Jindal and Rubio and, yes, Obama—all of whom were born in the USA—are all Natural Born Citizens and eligible to be president, along with about 300 million others.

    Repeating a quotation from above:

    ““The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

    What makes the third child different from her siblings? She was born in the USA.

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