Last Updated:October 31 @ 12:18 pm

Natural Born Citizen 101: Who can be president?

By GOPUSA Staff

E-mails constantly fly here, there, and everywhere regarding who can and can't be president or vice president. Can Barack Obama be president? How about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for vice president? Can he serve? Here are some answers to those questions which have churned up comments on blogs across the Internet.

Thanks goes out to Fox News' Bret Baier for providing a least some bit of clarity to an issue which drives some people absolutely into a stupor.

The Constitution requires that the president be a "natural born citizen," but does not define the term. That job is left to federal law, in 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. All the law requires is that the mother be an American citizen who has lived in the U.S. for five years or more, at least two of those years after the age of 14. If the mother fits those criteria, the child is a U.S. citizen at birth, regardless of the father's nationality.

The brouhaha over President Obama's birth certificate -- has revealed a widespread ignorance of some of the basics of American citizenship. The Constitution, of course, requires that a president be a "natural born citizen," but the Founding Fathers did not define the term, and it appears few people know what it means.

Brett lists several examples of who would be considered a natural born American. In short, people like Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal can breathe a sigh of relief. They are good to go.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 4.5/10 (138 votes cast)
Natural Born Citizen 101: Who can be president?, 4.5 out of 10 based on 138 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

452 Comments

  1. pebearComment by pebear
    May 1, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

    How does this affect test tube babies and even children of “C” sections? I guess it’s all how you define “Natural Born.” I would say Obama is a natural born citizen from what I can tell. But hey you never know. We did have a president tried to redefine the work “is”.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.6/5 (34 votes cast)
    • sweetcarolineComment by sweetcaroline
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

      I don’t think that “natural” born means natural born vs. c section, but rather that they are born in the United States. My history teacher said that there was a purpose in this as someon who was born in another country would have dual citizenship and if they lived there long, might have allegiance to that country. He even indicated that someone wanting a child to be president some day or eligible, would need to come home to America to have their child as being born overseas to American parents would not make their children natural born citizens and that is being born in the United States. I felt that left McCain out and that he could run for president. Perhpas it means that it should be defined. What about a child born to a father who was a citizen and a mother who is not? Do we follow the Jewish position that one who is born to a Jewish mother is a Jew? Or does the father count as well (and would that require a DNA to prove the parentage?). If the person is born on a US base in another country make that person a natural born citizen where if they were born in a hospital in that country that they would not be natural born American?

      No matter how it would be counted, Obama was born in Hawaii and to an American mother. Hawaii was a territory of the US if not yet a state. I can’t recall when they became a state.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (34 votes cast)
    • sharaya30Comment by sharaya30
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

      The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett defined “natural born citizen” as “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (54 votes cast)
    • Bayushi ZeroComment by Bayushi Zero
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

      @sweetcaroline
      An American born overseas (or just out of country) on an American Military Installation or American Territory is by definition a Natural Born Citizen.

      An Uncle was born on Naval Station Guantanamo Bay in the 1960s, yet he is a Natural born Citizen, as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay is Sovereign American soil.

      Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, formerly Sovereign American soil. As such, he is a Natural born American Citizen.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (37 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:17 pm

      Minor v. Happersett was a suffrage case and had nothing to do with defining citizenship.

      The definition that you claim does not exist in the form that you claim it to be.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (39 votes cast)
    • SuncoastComment by Suncoast
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

      I realize that Bret Baier has pretty hair, therefore that makes him smart, but in this case he is just another teleprompter reading buffoon. The Supreme Court has defined the term Natural-born in 3 cases, the first of which was in 1814, again in 1875 and finally in 1898. The following is a long read, but answers this question with fact, not liberal banter.

      The SUPREME COURT decisions
      In 1814
      The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph (listed at the end of this report-emphasis mine) from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:
      “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:
      “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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents (Note Plural emphasis mine) who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

      In 1875
      Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) In this case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
      “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 (plural-both parents emphasis mine) who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

      In 1898
      United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
      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 (Note Plural – both emphasis mine) who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
      On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.” Note: Natural-born and Native-born are NOT the same by definition.

      CONCLUSION: Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
      Hence every U.S. Citizen, including Bret Baier and FOX news must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because he is acting unconstitutionally.
      **************************************************************
      Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies of Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).
      Vital’s exact English translation: the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):
      § 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 (2) 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 French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus: Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .
      The terms “natives” and “natural born citizens” are obviously English terms; used to render the idea convyed by the French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes”: but both refered to the same category of citizen: one born in the country, of parents (2) who were citizens of that country.
      In the political philosophy of Vattel, the term “naturels” refers to citizens who are such by the Law of Nature, that is by the natural cirumstances of their birth — which they did not choose; the term “indigenes” is from the Latin, indigenes, which like the English, “indigenous”, means “begotten from within” (inde-genes), as in the phrase “the indigenous natives are the peoples who have been born and lived there for generations.” Hence the meaning the the term, “natural born citizen”, or “naturels ou indigenes” is the same: born in the country of two parents who are citizens of that country.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (113 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

      I love how people like suncoast cherry pick quotes from legal decisions that they do not understand.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (56 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

      “If the person is born on a US base in another country make that person a natural born citizen where if they were born in a hospital in that country that they would not be natural born American?”

      sweetcaroline, a person born on a U.S. base is actually born on U.S. soil regardless of where the base is located. That is similar to embassies. An U.S. embassy in any other country is U.S. soil.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (25 votes cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

      How come nobody understands how things really work? You guys are all incorrect. Neither a US overseas military base nor a US diplomatic mission is considered US soil. One would still be a US citizen at birth if the parent(s) qualify. It’s in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual:

      http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

      “c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:

      (1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.

      (2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).”

      The Panama Canal Zone was an interesting case. Birth there guaranteed non-citizen US nationality, although one could be born a US citizen if a parent was a US citizen. There was also a specific law stating that didn’t have the residence requirements for parents. There literally could have been generations of US citizens who had never lived in the US proper had the US kept control of the Canal Zone.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • mexpublicanComment by mexpublican
      May 1, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

      Thank you Suncoast for educating me and everyone else,on the definition of a natural born U.S CITIZEN.A person born from citizens(both parents)of the United States.The Presidents mother qualifies by being born in this country(regardless of her age when she gave birth)His father however,was never a citizen.Thus disqualifying the President to run for president.Even though he already did and won. Now…..what’s the next step? By the time you figure out how to do do it.He will have already have been re-elected.Let’s stop wasting time. We need to now look for and find,an electable candidate(that conservatives and liberals will vote for)to beat the Democratic nominee in 2016.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.4/5 (21 votes cast)
    • begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
      May 1, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

      Pebear, if you are serious about natural born and c sections, you should change you handle to pebrain.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      May 1, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

      Mexpublican: Why can’t we defeat Obama in 2012?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • Bill from MiddletownComment by Bill from Middletown
      May 1, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

      Suncoast, I usually don’t read anything more than a couple of paragraphs, but yours caught my interest. Good Job!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (11 votes cast)
    • grundoonComment by grundoon
      May 1, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

      Suncoast is absolutely correct! The REASON the framers of the constitution applied the “natural born” (born of two citizen parents) qualification specifically to the president is because they didn’t want the Commander in Chief of the armed forces to have conflicting loyalties in time of war.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (23 votes cast)
    • barbarossa03Comment by barbarossa03
      May 1, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

      I like the way that Suncoast leaves off the rest of the Minor v. Happersett decision, a convenient sound bite to try to prove a faulty logic argument

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.2/5 (11 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 9:34 am

      Suncoast:
      “I realize that Bret Baier has pretty hair, therefore that makes him smart, but in this case he is just another teleprompter reading buffoon. The Supreme Court has defined the term Natural-born in 3 cases, the first of which was in 1814, again in 1875 and finally in 1898. The following is a long read, but answers this question with fact, not liberal banter.”

      Ok lets look at your cases

      “The SUPREME COURT decisions
      In 1814
      The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph (listed at the end of this report-emphasis mine) from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:”

      First of all Venus didn’t just quote the 212nd paragraph. It quoted about 6 or 7 paragraphs from Vattel, including the part that said that His rules didn;t apply to England. Second this was 14 years after the first Vattel translation that used the term Natural Born Citizen, and 23 years after the drafting of the constitution, but the Judge specificly DID NOT USE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS THE ENGLISH FOR INDIGNES.

      Most damningly, the Court did not siscuss Vattel in terms of citizenship at all. The court drew from Vattel the concept of Domicile. None of the claimints in VENUS were natural Born citizens. They were boh British born who had naturalised as US Citizens and were now argung over their property rights as England and the USA were at that time at war. So The court used Vattel to determine their rights based on where they were living at the time. They did not use vattel to define Natural Born citizenship and indeed were careful not to use that phrase at all.

      Continued next post

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 9:42 am

      Suncoast
      “In 1875
      Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) In this case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
      “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 (plural-both parents emphasis mine) who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.””

      As ever this is grossly misleading. The case was about the womens right to Vote, and the court wasnted to leave it in no doubt that Virginia Minor was a citizen. And Of course Suncopast leaves out the next 2 sentances where the court makes clear it was not ruling on children born to Aliens. Here is the rest of the Paragraph

      “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

      Page 88 U. S. 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. 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.”

      On Wong

      “In 1898
      United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:”

      Yeah notice the only part of the ruling Suncoast cites is them quoting Minor. of course his interpretation is wholly wrong. And its right there in wong. Firstly the Majority opinion declares Wong natural Born.

      Secondly the DISSENT states flat out that the magority opinion eligible for the Presidency of the United States, and list a number of reasons why this is a bad idea without ever dealing with the legal arguments of the magority.

      So Wong stated that children born of Aliens were eligible for the presidency.

      Continued

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.9/5 (8 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 9:50 am

      “Vattel did not invent the notion “natural born citizen”; he was merely applying the Law of Nature to questions of citizenship. In fact the term first appears in a letter of the future Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, where the Framers were consulting 3 copies of Vattel’s book to complete their work (according to the testimony of Benjamin Franklin).”

      Completly ignorant and wrong. Firstly the term “natural law” was not invented by Vatell, but by Cicero, tribune of the Roman empire.

      Secondly, Vattel never wrote “Natural born Citizen” and no translation of Les Driot des Gens includes that term toll after the US constitution.

      Third the Phrase first appeared in 1610 in Calvins case, where Lord Coke wrote (I’m paraphrasing slightly to make it wasier to read) “A Frenchman, in amity with the crone should come to England, and he has issue here, that issue is a subject, and the local alliegence is enogh to make him a Natural Born Subject” Calvin was not born of English subjects but wanted to inherit land, a right that was only avalible to the natural Born Subject of England. Lord Coke Ruled he had that right. This ruling held till an Act of Parliment in 1984.

      Finally,. Vattel stated 2 paragraphs after what you quoted that his laws of citizenship did not apply to the laws of England. That means that the founders were framing their wording inder English law.

      In any case, natural Born Citizen was quoted multiple times in Lord Blackstones “Commentaries on English Law” a book the framers studied in their youth and was quoted 16 times more than Vattel in the congresional debates.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 2, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

      Suncoast is RIGHT and Bret Baier is WRONG. All one needs to do is actually read the wording contained in Title 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. The code refers to 2 terms only, that of naturalization or naturalized.
      These are their definitions:
      Naturalization is the process under federal law whereby a foreign-born person may be granted citizenship.
      Naturalized is the process to admit (a foreigner) to the citizenship of a country.
      The subject at hand is not covered under Code as the word “natural” is not mentioned once and is further not defined as a process to determine such.
      Natural born citizens are those born of citizen parents, within or without the Republic, provided in the latter case that one of the parents had resided in the Republic prior to the birth of the child.
      CASE CLOSED!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 1:29 pm

      “Comment by Blu Owen
      May 2, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

      Suncoast is RIGHT and Bret Baier is WRONG. All one needs to do is actually read the wording contained in Title 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401. The code refers to 2 terms only, that of naturalization or naturalized.
      These are their definitions:”

      Thats funny as when I look at

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12/subchapter-III

      I find the first 2 heading are

      Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409)

      Part II—Nationality Through Naturalization (§§ 1421–1459)

      And the heading of 1401 is

      8 USC § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

      Its almost seems like you are lying through your *** or quoting people who are lying though their ***.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 2, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

      Suranis, if you are so knowledgeable, please point out for ALL of us, where in federal law the exact phrase, paragraph, or sentence is that the term “Natural Born Citizen” is actually defined.
      If you can not do so, I think my premise and that of Suncoast’s that the Supreme Court has defined the term will stand.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

      “Suranis, if you are so knowledgeable, please point out for ALL of us, where in federal law the exact phrase, paragraph, or sentence is that the term “Natural Born Citizen” is actually defined.
      If you can not do so, I think my premise and that of Suncoast’s that the Supreme Court has defined the term will stand.”

      Firstly, I’m not all knowlagable. Second the only time that Natural Born Citizen was ever defined in federal law was by the 1790 natualisation.

      http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, 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: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admtted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

      So, it said that the children of citizens born abroad were “Concidered as” NBC. Of course, in Marios waffle and the rest of the birthers, “Concidered as” does not mean the same thing… unless its something that they can use, as here. In any case, its only applied to those born abroad.

      That’s the only definition ever given in Federal law.

      It was repealed in 1795 as they realised that they had accidently made it so that only people born abroad could be president, and also as the act was unclear whether you needed one parent or two. They were careful not to use Natural Born Citizen again.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

      Suranis, in one of your threads you stated that it was a matter of law on who a “natural born” citizen and went on to defend parts of US Code. I have a simple and obvious question. Before the Code was written how did they figure who was eligible to be president. If Congress can make you a “natural born” citizen then they would have the right to change that status at any time.
      The following is an excerpt from Constitutional scholar Herb Titus, Esq., that explains it much better than I can:
      “A natural born citizen is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why “natural born citizenship” is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be “natural born” citizen of that state.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (9 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 5, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

      Suranis, are you sure you do not work for the Obama administration because you seem quite good at trying to obfuscate the obvious?
      Everyone of the cases you have cited so far have been State cases. In some of these cases the judges even stated to Obama’s side prior to delivering their verdict that unless they provided some evidence a judgement in favor of the plaintiffs would be the result. Then they inexplicably ruled in favor of Obama. One judge even used State case law from another State to explain his actions with respect to his States’ law.
      Obama has spent millions on lawyers fighting this in State courts.
      In Tennessee a State case has landed in the hands of a Federal District Judge and in a 12 page opinion he made the following statements:
      “The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.”
      “The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial.”
      “It is clear that the stated federal issue of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’”
      “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”
      If you truly believe that Obama is qualified under the Constitution, then I would think that you would be someone who would be screaming to Obama and his lawyers to let it be decided by a federal court or SCOTUS. Or is that what you fear?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 6, 2012 @ 7:00 am

      Every federal court to rule on a birther case has rejected it, and Tisdale V Obama, for example, was a federal case. Right now in Missisipi Orly Taitz is fighting her case bieng recused to federal court. And you call us fearful?

      Purpura v. Sebelius, No. 3:10-CV-04814, 2011 WL 1547768, (D.N.J.Apr. 21, 2011) (dismissing case challenging Patient Protection and Affordable Care on various grounds,including that was not signed into law by a person eligible to be President of the United States)

      Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. v. Salazar et al
      , No. 2:10-cv-01663-MLCF-JCW (E.D. La. Mar. 5,2011) (denying motion to intervene based on interest in pressing charge that President Obama is not anatural born citizen in lawsuit challenging Obama Administration’s Moratorium on deepwater drilling in Gulf of Mexico);

      Hunter v. U.S. Supreme Court, No. 2:08cv00232, 2009 WL 111683 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 16,2009), (dismissing case alleging, among other things, that Obama is not eligible), appeal dismissed

      Barnett v. Obama, 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN, 2009 WL 3861788 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility;criticizing conduct of plaintiff’s counsel in case filed on behalf of active and former military personnel,
      state representatives, taxpayers, relatives, and political candidates),order clarified,2009 WL 8557250(C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2009),aff’d sub nom.

      Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2011),
      reh’g and reh’gen banc denied , Nos. 09-56827, 10-55084 (Feb. 2, 2012);

      Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa.2008) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility; characterizing various plaintiff ’s claims asfrivolous)

      And of course theres

      Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama, No. 6:08cv03405, 2011 WL 4916569 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 17, 2011) (dismissing case brought on, amongother bases, that, as non-white, Obama is not eligible to hold office), aff’d , No. 09-5012 (8th Cir. Jan. 31,2012)

      Lovely case that.

      And thats just a ssmall sample of the cases in federal court. If you want the full list its in the evidence pages of http://www.scribd.com/doc/92443331/2012-05-04-MDEC-Memo-in-Support-of-Motion-for-JOP-with-Exhibits

      As for the Supremes, its been before the Supreme court 16 times, and there was een argument in the case of Donofrio V Obama. The supremes have regected it 16 times and affirned the lower courts ruling.

      As for what way the case would go we can see that from the transcript of Oral Arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS

      “Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England? They did not want that. They wanted natural born Americans.

      [Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

      Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?”

      Justice Scalia: Well, maybe. I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution. I don’t think you’re disagreeing. It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?”

      As for herb titus, he can say whatever he likes but nobody agrees with him. No-one agrees with him eiather that no president is legal becasue they hae not been annointed in Biblical style either.

      And finally, your waffle about tennessee, there was nothing inexlicable about the Judges judgement. he ruled in that fashion as the defense put forward a better argument, and the Judge rules that the Plaintiffs arguments were not probative or persuasive, ie that their case proved nothing and would not convince a housecat.

      Oh and Obama has only been represented in 3 cases. He has not spent millions to defend these cases, in most cases the defense was public laywers that would have been in court anyway, and most likely would have beendealing with cases more important than birther insanity. His 2008 campaign spend approx 2 million on legal fees, but McCains campaign spend 1.5 million as well. Believe it or not, Obamas campaign did not spend all its time fighting birther cases anymore than McCains did.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.1/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 6, 2012 @ 10:09 am

      Suranis, I believe you DO understand these 2 different principles of judicial doctrine:
      Jus sanguinis – the principle that a person’s nationality at birth is the same as that of his natural parents.
      Jus soli – the principle that a person’s nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth.
      Since I believe that is the case please explain your point of view with regards to these 2 principles and provide me with case law which you are so quick to reference.
      In Minor v. Happersett – The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization” and that the Constitution “does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.” Under the common law, according to the court, “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.” The court observed that some authorities “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth. This confirmed the principle of jus sanguinis being the definition of “natural born citizen”.
      The 14th Amendment and all the Supreme Court cases that you have cited all deal with the principal of jus solis or if one prefers a “native born citizens”.
      Since you seem to be knowledgeable on these subjects could you please cite in what case(s) did the Supreme Court equate these 2 different principles as being equal and interchangeable.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 7, 2012 @ 12:01 am

      Suranis, I am still waiting for you or anyone on this forum to cite in what case(s) the Supreme Court equated the judicial principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis as being equal and interchangeable. That IS what the issue is about!
      To me there can be little argument that our Founding Fathers placed an extra qualification for the office of president otherwise they would not have used the wording of Article 2, Section 1, in the Constitution which is different from Article 1, Section 2 and 3.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 7, 2012 @ 12:25 am

      “Suranis, I am still waiting for you or anyone on this forum to cite in what case(s) the Supreme Court equated the judicial principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis as being equal and interchangeable. That IS what the issue is about!”

      No it isnt. What the issue is about is; what is the law in the United States of America in the case of eligibilty to the Presidency.

      The dissent in Wong Kim Ark made clear that the majority opinion of the court made Wong eligibe to be President of the United States. And the magority Opinion deglared Wong Both Natural Born and a citizen.

      I dont know what the heck you think you think equal and interchangable is all about.

      “To me there can be little argument that our Founding Fathers placed an extra qualification for the office of president otherwise they would not have used the wording of Article 2, Section 1, in the Constitution which is different from Article 1, Section 2 and 3.”

      Of course they did. They added the qualification that the President had to be born in the United states, not an ambassador or a member of foriegn royalty and not a member of an invading army. The end. And they used terms which had been clearly understood since 1607 and were clearly understood for 250 years after. Till some people needed a reason to pretend someone was not really President.

      I dont know what the hell you are trying to prove with that paragraph btw.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      May 7, 2012 @ 1:42 am

      Suranis, jus sanguinis has been around since the roman times and was used in Article 2, Section 1, to define who would be eligible for president and was well understood by our Founding Fathers. Whereas, jus soli for our country was instituted with the 14h Amendment. Nothing in this Amendment says the concept of jus sanguinis as used in Article 2, Section 1, would be repealed. Also, as to US Code Congress can make any law in pursuance of the Constitution. They CAN NOT write laws that would replace or reinterpret the Constitution.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 7, 2012 @ 11:13 am

      “Suranis, jus sanguinis has been around since the roman times”

      Actually its been around a lot longer. In ancient Athens and Sparta you could not be a citizen of the city unless you were born from an Athenian/Spartan woman. It probably had roots back farther than that.

      So?

      “and was used in Article 2, Section 1, to define who would be eligible for president and was well understood by our Founding Fathers. Whereas, jus soli for our country was instituted with the 14h Amendment. ”

      Bull. ****.

      Quoting the 1898 Supreme Court Case US v Wong Kim Ark:

      “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.”

      And the most holy Minor V Happersett agrees

      “At common law, to which the Framers were familiar…”

      Now subjectg and Citizen were entirely amalogous terms. See http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/i-destroy-michaelns-rebuttal-to-the-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/#comment-809

      As if that were not enough, the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark also approvingly quoted Justice Gaston of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in his statement that the term “citizen” is “PRECISELY ANALOGOUS” to the term “subject:”

      “Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.’

      You are just wrong. Jindal and Rubio are eligible for the presidency. As is President Obama.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • icetreyComment by icetrey
      May 21, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

      Military bases, consulates and embassies are not and have never been US territory. That’s a myth. It’s merely a diplomatic agreement that makes them inviolate.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  2. peacemarauderComment by peacemarauder
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

    How does this make Rubio eligible? His mother was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.4/5 (28 votes cast)
    • sweetcarolineComment by sweetcaroline
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

      If Rubio’s mother was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, was he born in the USA? If that made him a US citizen, then he is natural born citizen. However, there is talk about illegal aliens not being able to come here to bear children and thereby make them citizens. Was she given asylum and not illegal at the time? There could be a question about Rubio, but the general take is that if he were born in the US then he has automatic citizenship and is therefore a natural born citizen.
      I don’t think that someone of a mother or father who was a US citizen who is living in another country and has a child there, that the child would qualify and should not qualify.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.9/5 (28 votes cast)
    • suekComment by suek
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

      sweetcaroline, you are misinformed; ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’ are very different.

      NBC=a child born in the country to citizen PARENTS. Jindal’s parents were still citizens of India when he was born in America; likewise, Rubio’s father did not become an American citizen until four years after his birth. Either one or both parents of the two men were NOT American citizens when their sons were born here therefore, their children do not qualify.

      Are both Rubio and Jindal American citizens? Yes. Are they Natural Born? No.

      Please don’t confuse the two terms.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (53 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

      Rubio was born in the U.S. therefore he is a citizen at birth. The term “natural born citizen” is on old fashioned way of saying “citizen at birth.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (36 votes cast)
    • SuncoastComment by Suncoast
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

      I just got a great idea. Let Rubio run. Then the Democrats and all the talking heads and teleprompter readers on TV will follow up screaming that Rubio is not qualified and will bring out the facts from the Supreme Court that Rubio is not qualified under the natural-born definition AND then we can drop the bombshell on them that neither is Oba,ma.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (32 votes cast)
    • SuncoastComment by Suncoast
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

      Sweetcaroline being born in the USA makes him a native-born citizen, not a natural-born citizen. Big difference. Suek is correct.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (22 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:14 am

      “Suncoast, Please state where “native Born Citizen” is used as the third form of citizenship in US law”

      It gets even worse for suncoast. This is from Perkins V Elg. a case dealing with losing your natural Born Citizenship

      “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

      So according to the Supreme court native born citizens can become President.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.2/5 (9 votes cast)
  3. citizenwellsComment by citizenwells
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

    Baier’s article is flawed.
    Do some more research.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (45 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

      Nope. Baier’s article is pretty much right on the money.

      Born in the U.S. = Natural born citizen.

      Who your parents are has nothing to do with it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (45 votes cast)
    • tomwygleComment by tomwygle
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

      Chilidog,

      They say if you tell people the same thing over and over again that they will start to believe it,

      No matter how WRONG you are.

      Doesn’t seem to be working for you though.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (23 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

      Tomwygle, the fact of the matter is, Minor v Happersett does not say what these idiots claim it says.

      That has been proven over and over again in the courts.

      FAIL

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.9/5 (17 votes cast)
    • tomwygleComment by tomwygle
      May 1, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

      Chilidog,

      The FAIL here is your inability to follow a thread, I was talking about your definition of Natural Born Citizen.

      FAIL

      As I read through the posts on this discussion, I keep seeing your comments telling people their wrong, yet you offer no facts, or sources.

      Double FAIL

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (17 votes cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 1, 2012 @ 10:46 pm

      Congressional Research Service report (Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement) dated Nov 11, 2011. CRS is commissioned by Congress to conduct reports for them to determine how to proceed with legislation and other functions of Congress. The author was Jack Maskell, who is a career legislative attorney with CRS.

      http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

      “Those issues or “doubts” raised in dicta by the Supreme Court in Happersett in 1875 were, however, answered by the Supreme Court in a later decision in 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which clearly repudiated the narrow and exclusive “original-community-of-citizens” reasoning of the Court in Dred Scott based on lineage and parentage, in favor of interpreting the Constitution in light of the language and principles of the British common law from which the concept was derived. The majority opinion of the Court clearly found, by any fair reading of its reasoning, discussion, and holding, that every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, not the child of foreign diplomats or of troops in hostile occupation), regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, is a “natural born” citizen, and that the Fourteenth Amendment merely affirmed the common law and fundamental rule in this country that one born on the soil of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen:”

      “The constitutional history, the nearly unanimous consensus of legal and constitutional scholars, and the consistent, relevant case law thus indicate that every child born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that is, not children of diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation or military troops in hostile occupation), is a native born U.S. citizen and thus a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be President under the qualifications clause of the Constitution, regardless of the nationality or citizenship of one’s parents. The legal issues regarding “natural born” citizenship and birth within the United States, without regard to lineage or ancestral bloodline, have been well settled in this country for more than a century, and such concepts date back to, and even pre-date, the founding of the nation.

      The weight of more recent federal cases, as well as the majority of scholarship on the subject, also indicates that the term “natural born citizen” would most likely include, as well as native born citizens, those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents, at least one of whom had previously resided in the United States, or those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent who, prior to the birth, had met the requirements of federal law for physical presence in the country.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 2, 2012 @ 9:46 am

      ypw510, the Congressional Research Service is not the Supreme Court and that report is as flawed as many comments posted here including yours. The basis of the term “Natural Born” must be traced back to the founders understanding of the term, not later definitions put forth or alleged to have been put forth by the SCOTUS. The interpretation that report makes of the “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” decision, even if that is the correct conclusion, does not change what the founders understood at the time the constitution was written. “Minor v. Happersett ” gives the correct definition of the original intent. The SCOTUS has a history of rewriting original intent, but that doesn’t make it correct.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.1/5 (7 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:07 am

      “The basis of the term “Natural Born” must be traced back to the founders understanding of the term, not later definitions put forth or alleged to have been put forth by the SCOTUS”

      Ok lets do that

      James madison. the “Father of the US constitution”

      http://books.google.com/books?id=F8c4AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA97&ots=eOLYOpqbpE&dq=%22established%20maxim%20that%20birth%20is%20a%20criterion%20of%20allegiance%22&pg=PA97&ci=444,767,410,192&source=bookclip

      “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • icetreyComment by icetrey
      May 21, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

      chilidog

      So a child born one foot over the border in the US to illegals can be Pres but the child of two US citizens born one foot over the border outside the US can’t?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  4. klesbComment by klesb
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

    Fox News Brett Baier – Constitutional law expert?

    Ye gods!

    GOPUSA Staff – resign!

    Natural born requires the individual to be the child of two U.S. citizen parents. Native born does not, and applies to the individual being born in the U.S.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (62 votes cast)
    • RME KRNLComment by RME KRNL
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

      I think you’re correct in your distinction between native born and natural born. GOPUSA and Bret Baier both need to do some more research.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (51 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

      So, klesb, are you a constitutional law expert?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (23 votes cast)
    • slick5455Comment by slick5455
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

      Exactly! Can’t you just hear the little wheels turning in the head honchos heads at the RNC and GOP as they try to figure out how to spin ineligible candidates and make the obvious go away?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (13 votes cast)
    • begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
      May 1, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

      I am an expert on knowing who loves my country. When I see one who will not salute our flag, and stays for years in a congregation that jumps and shouts with hate at America when the pastor shouts “God Dam* America”, I know without a shred of doubt that he is not one of us.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (27 votes cast)
  5. Ron MathisComment by Ron Mathis
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

    Bret Baier’s assessment flies in the face of facts, and GOPUSA distorts them even more. Several SC decisions have ruled that both parents must be citizens for a person to be a natural-born citizen. Neither Rubio’s nor Jindal’s parents were American citizens when they were born, so they are not natural-born citizens. Obama apparently went to college as a foreign student. I’m not sure what the Republicans think they can gain by ignoring the eligibility issue with all three of these people?

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (50 votes cast)
    • sweetcarolineComment by sweetcaroline
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

      Can you cite the SC decisions that say both parents must be US citizens for the child to be natural born citizen? If one parent, particularly the mother is a citizen then the child is a citizen. However, I take the natural born to be more native born as being born in this country.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (19 votes cast)
    • suekComment by suek
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

      sweetcaroline,

      Minor v. Happersett, SCOTUS case, 1875.

      Look it up. It defines NBC.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (20 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

      suek, the MvH opinion DID NOT address the case where parents are not citizens.

      Therefore the decision is NOT binding in that case.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (18 votes cast)
    • suekComment by suek
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

      Chilidog,

      SCOTUS did not have to address the instance of non-citizen parents; they defined NBC in their decision. The case WAS NOT originally about NBC vs. non-NBC parents.

      They defined the term in their decision and yes, indeed, it IS binding.

      Show me where the case has been overturned. I’ll wait.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (18 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:01 am

      @Suek

      “Chilidog,

      SCOTUS did not have to address the instance of non-citizen parents; they defined NBC in their decision. The case WAS NOT originally about NBC vs. non-NBC parents.

      They defined the term in their decision and yes, indeed, it IS binding.

      Show me where the case has been overturned. I’ll wait.”

      They overturned it in the next 3 sentences.

      “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.”

      Minor V Happersett declares you are full of it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  6. Bruce HarrisonComment by Bruce Harrison
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

    With all due respect, I think Brett is wrong. Title 8 Sec. 1401 defines what constitutes a citizen, not what constitutes a “natural born” citizen. Supreme Court rulings seem to imply that it requires that BOTH parents be U.S. citizens; if that were the criterion, President Obama would not be eligible.

    Second, having read the code, it does not say the mother must be a citizen for a child to be a citizen. It says that one of the parents must be a citizen with the other criteria listed.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (27 votes cast)
    • RME KRNLComment by RME KRNL
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

      Exactamundo!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (11 votes cast)
    • FreeGeezerComment by FreeGeezer
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

      It’s not even that tight as it says “(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”. I certainly don’t believe that’s what our founders intended. I wonder if BO wrote that?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

      Bruce, have you ever read the WKA decision?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 1, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

      There has been no specific SCOTUS ruling on who a natural born citizen is. Minor v Happersett merely said that there was no doubt that a child born to two US citizen parents was a natural born citizen. What they said was that a child born in the jurisdiction of the US irrespective of parental citizenship had doubts as to whether or not they were even US citizens.

      It was merely background. MvH was a voters’ right case. All SCOTUS was trying to do was establish that Virginia Minor was a citizen, and whether her status as a citizen gave her the right to vote.

      Several of the court rulings in the last few years say that the combination of the MvH and Wong Kim Ark cases is definitive that a person born in the US is a natural born citizen for Presidential eligibility purposes.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  7. James SeigfreidComment by James Seigfreid
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

    Seriously flawed, as we should expect. Since “natural born” is not specifically defined in the Constitution, it must be viewed in the light of the prevalent understanding of the term at the time which it was used, which is based on Emerich de Vattels treatises on the Laws of Nature…quite clearly defining citizenship as being passed on by the citizenship of the FATHER. Since there has been no Con Con to change that, the original context of “natural born” would stand as what the Founding Fathers understood it to be when they wrote it down. I don’t care about U.S. Code this-or-that because it has never been re-defined through the arduous legal process to amend the Constitution. And when someone is deliberately hiding something, there is usually very good reason why. All this aside for a moment, the simple fact that a man…whoever he claims to be…presents obviously forged documents on-line and on the White House website, numerous Federal crimes have been committed. This man and his cronies need to be arrested, not impeached. The same can be said for Pelosi, Reid and all the other bad actors involved—including Hillary. The entire Clinton campaign in ’08 KNEW Obama was not eligible, and Bill was going to go public with the info, and then his best friend Bill Gwatney, Chairman of the Arkansas Democrat Party, was brutally murdered in his office. Bill was going to go public anyway, and then he was informed that Chelsea would be next. I have interviewed a few of the people who were there at the time. Do you suppose Brett Baer would report that?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (40 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

      A lot of people, usually liberal, try to whine that “Natural Born Citizen” isn’t defined in the Constitution. Well I have a shock for those people. Freedom of Speech, of Assembly etc weren’t defined either. Yet they want us to accept them as the founders clearly intended (except when they disagree of course :) )

      Shall we look to US Code to define those? That would kind of destroy the whole purpose to the Constitution being the Supreme LAW if it could be so easily changed.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (15 votes cast)
    • gene1357Comment by gene1357
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

      It appears that McCain knew of Obama’s ineligibility as well. What to do with McCain?
      In any case, this information may be divulged during the current campaign, at the appropriate time.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.1/5 (9 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:47 pm

      So which is it, Vicki? Do you go by the Constitution as we know it or by U.S. Code? I don’t quite get your point here. On one hand you seem to be saying that the Constitution is not clearly defined and then you say that we shouldn’t depend on the U.S. code to interpret it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (8 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

      @LAPhil

      I go by the Constitution AS written and intended by the founders. The author and lots of liberals (you?) want to go by whatever they want it to mean.

      Then again I can expect none else from a people who did not laugh Clinton out of office when he challenged the meaning of “is” in a court of law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (9 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

      Vicki, first of all I don’t appreciate the implication that I might be a liberal, and if you ever read any of my other posts on this forum you would know very well that I’m not. Second of all, you still didn’t answer the question which I thought I asked quite sincerely, so let’s just let it go since you apparently don’t want to have a discussion.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

      So, Vicki, are you familiar with the 14th amendment?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 1, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

      @LAPhil. I did answer your question. Very specifically.

      @Chilidog Yes. Are you familiar with the difference between naturalized, natural born, native born? Are you familiar with Minor v. Happersett, SCOTUS case, 1875

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      May 1, 2012 @ 9:20 pm

      Vicki: You did NOT answer my question. Rather you totally dodged it. Can’t you discuss anything without just making vague statements and answering questions with questions?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 2, 2012 @ 2:30 am

      LAPhill asks. (May 1, 2012 @ 4:47 pm )
      ———————————
      So which is it, Vicki? Do you go by the Constitution as we know it or by U.S. Code?
      ———————————

      To which I answer (May 1, 2012 @ 5:17 pm )
      “I go by the Constitution AS written and intended by the founders.”

      LAPhil then says (May 1, 2012 @ 5:24 pm )
      ———————————
      you still didn’t answer the question which I thought I asked quite sincerely,
      ———————————

      To which I replied (May 1, 2012 @ 8:29 pm)
      “@LAPhil. I did answer your question. Very specifically. ”

      LAPhil then says (May 1, 2012 @ 9:20 pm)
      ——————————————
      Vicki: You did NOT answer my question. Rather you totally dodged it. Can’t you discuss anything without just making vague statements and answering questions with questions?
      ——————————————

      So I now ask what question did LAPhil ask that I must have missed. Surely my answer is exactly to the question he asked. The answer appears to be exact and not vague at all. It does not even have the tone of a question. I did review his entire statements at each of those times and did not find any other sentences ending with a ? or ones that should have ended with a question mark.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      May 2, 2012 @ 7:53 am

      OK, Vicki, let’s try this again. In your original post you stated “A lot of people, usually liberal, try to whine that “Natural Born Citizen” isn’t defined in the Constitution. Well I have a shock for those people. Freedom of Speech, of Assembly etc weren’t defined either. Yet they want us to accept them as the founders clearly intended. Shall we look to US Code to define those? That would kind of destroy the whole purpose to the Constitution being the Supreme LAW if it could be so easily changed.”

      There seems to be a contradiction there. If the original freedoms weren’t defined by the Founding Fathers, then don’t we have to rely on the courts to determine what they meant? You seem to be saying that would be wrong. Please explain again.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:00 am

      I’m perplexed why @LAPhil has so hard a time understanding Vicki’s point. I can clearly read that she’s saying that the Constitution is the Supreme law, that although the SCOTUS can interpret the constitution’s meaning, simply passing a law (US Code) can not over rule the constitution. When no definition is included, a true scholar will look to “Original Intent” not US Code or even a flawed SCOTUS ruling although that will become the legal definition until some later ruling might change that.

      @Chilidog, said “So, Vicki, are you familiar with the 14th amendment?” I don’t know if she is or not, but if you think it has bearing here you certainly aren’t. Nothing in the 14th deals with the issue of “Natural Born” citizenship, it does deal with “Native Born” citizenship, which as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is a completely different matter.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 11:17 am

      @heyrob

      “Nothing in the 14th deals with the issue of “Natural Born” citizenship, it does deal with “Native Born” citizenship, which as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is a completely different matter.”

      Suure it is

      http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html

      “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

      There you go, a case in the Supreme court from 70 years after the 14th stating that Native Born Citizens can become President.

      I’ll have some paper and carbons for your written apology.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 2, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

      suranis writes
      —————————————
      There you go, a case in the Supreme court from 70 years after the 14th stating that Native Born Citizens can become President.
      ————————————–

      Miss reading or willful intent to deceive? The element of the rather long article you quoted was a comment by an Attorney General not the opinion of the court. The comment also concerned a natural born person ( Father and mother both American citizens ) named Steinkauler.

      “The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis.”

      That son would be the “young Steinkauler”. Note the AG stated correctly that young Steinkauler was native born (St. Louis) but that young Steinkauler is ALSO natural born as his parents were naturalized before his birth. The AG erred in claiming that native born is all that is needed to be President but because young Steinkauler is ALSO natural born (2 parents rule that anti-birthers hate) He most certainly was eligible to become President.
      Search for “Page 307 U. S. 330″ in the article YOU linked to.

      The ACTUAL case is MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court.

      The question is “whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg. who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden…”

      Search for “Page 307 U. S. 327″ in the article YOU linked to.

      The Plaintiff is clearly a NATURAL BORN Citizen (2 parent citizen rule)
      “Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year.”

      Search for “Page 307 U. S. 327″ in the article YOU linked to.

      Presuming of course that her parents did become naturalized before her birth. That evidence was not presented.

      Careful reading of the courts comments about the 14th and of Wong Kim Ark show that they are contemplating the point of the case. Can a minor loose citizenship and not the difference (if any) between birth on soil and citizenship of parents.

      So tell us again how the court has ruled that born in the US of foreign parentage = Natural Born?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

      Miss reading or willful intent to deceive? The element of the rather long article you quoted was a comment by an Attorney General not the opinion of the court. The comment also concerned a natural born person ( Father and mother both American citizens ) named Steinkauler.

      A natural born person who was described by the Atterney generalof the United states as a “Native Born Citizen” who could become President. And which the opinion of the Supreme court agrees with as they quoted his opinion in support of their conclusion that no forign influence can affect ones natural born citizenship.

      So you ahve someone born of 2 citizen parents, who is described as a Native born citizen, which you are trying to argue is distinct from a natural Born citizen. As can be seen from this, it was not so.

      lets see another Native quote…

      James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

      “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen, (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “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.”

      Or how about someone apointed to a state supreme court by John jay, he of the letter to washington?

      St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

      “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign….That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776 [the date the British occupied New York], he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.”

      So yeah, stop trying to snow the issue. The opinion at the time of the framing of the constitution is clear. native born = natural born

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 4, 2012 @ 7:49 am

      @Suranis ““Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

      Using this as an answer to my comment that “Nothing in the 14th deals with the issue of “Natural Born” citizenship” is simply an attempt to muddy the water. Although your quote was indeed included in an SCOTUS opinion, it was actually a referenced quote by “Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont in his letter of advice to the Secretary of State Hamilton Fish”, and your given quote is given without the benifit of the preceeding sentence: “On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:” It clearly states that the AG reached this conclusion not the SCOTUS, and simply including the quote in the opinion does not in and of itself raise the quote to a finding of law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  8. FreeGeezerComment by FreeGeezer
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:28 pm

    As much as I would like to disagree with you, @peacemarauder, I can’t. His parents didn’t become citizens until he was 4 years old.

    As for Obama, this is what Title 8 U.S. Code, Section 1401 is so convoluted it must’ve been written by Obama.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (13 votes cast)
    • sweetcarolineComment by sweetcaroline
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

      His mother was a US citizen and he was born in the US and therefore was a natural born US citizen at his birth. Whether or not she later gave up citizenship doesn’t matter if she was a citizen at his birth. She nor his father could give up his citizenship and he was in the US by age 12 (after having been taken outside the country after his birth) and reavowed his citizenship.

      So if a father had to be a citizen then it would have to be proven by DNA. One thing is that if the mother is a citizen then you know the citizenship of the child as it is definitely her child. The father may or may not be the person to whom she married.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (14 votes cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:11 am

      @sweetcaroline, why is this issue so difficult for you and so many others to understand? The whole issue of Natural Born citizenship was of tremendous concern to the founders. There is no way they wanted someone do did not bear full allegiance to the U.S. to ever become the President. This is why we have Section 1 Article II of the Constitution requiring the President to be “Natural Born” not simply native born or even naturalized. Since it was understood at that time that having a parent of some other nationality (Kenyan) made the child a citizen of that country as well (Dual Citizenship) therefore no one with “dual citizenship” can by definition be a “Natural Born” citizen.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  9. Joe DantoneComment by Joe Dantone
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

    That assessment is something which Baier claims has been made by legal experts. If so, then bringing out the experts is in order so the rest of us can see what they see and develop our own opinions. I, frankly, have never heard such an opinion, singly or as a group decision, being made and publicized. Please tell me when that happened and who made it. Until then, Minor V Happersett is the ruling precedent. That makes Jindal, Haley and Rubio ineligible for President. FWIW, Baier thinks Obama’s half sister is a natural born citizen. I have that in his own words. This has gone too far and needs to be settled.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (26 votes cast)
    • suekComment by suek
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:44 pm

      Joe, you are correct.

      The 1875 SCOTUS case Minor v. Happersett defined a NBC as a child born in the country to citizen parentS. Plural.

      This case has never been overturned and is the precedent.

      Although some of our ‘best’ American citizens are naturalized, neither Jindal, Haley, not Rubio qualify for POTUS or VPOTUS.

      We have that problem squatting in the White House right now; let’s not make the same mistake again.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (30 votes cast)
    • JoeEnglishComment by enraged8hobbit
      May 1, 2012 @ 6:37 pm

      The constitution DOES NOT state that the VP must meet the same qualifications as for the president. All It says is that to be President. This would also mean that Rubio cannot ascede to be president in the case of death or disability of the President. The next in line in that case would be the speaker of the house.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (5 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 9:58 am

      @enraged8hobbit
      “The constitution DOES NOT state that the VP must meet the same qualifications as for the president. All It says is that to be President. ”

      Yes it does, actually. Its the 20th Amendment I believe. Try actually reading the constitution sometime.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:25 am

      It was the 12th Amendment. It’s the last sentence.

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

      “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  10. roycelathamComment by roycelatham
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

    You have obviously not researched the issue. At the adoption of the Constitution a natural born citizen was one born in the country to citizen parents. A supreme court precedent exists in Minor v. Happersett. Senate Resolution SR511 says that John McCane is a natural born citizen due to his citizen parents. There has been no legislation mentioning natural born citizen, except the Naturalization Law of 1970, which was repealed in 1795. Even in that law a natural born citizen had to have two citizen parents, though the child could be born out of the country. No other amendment or law contemplated the phrase natural born citizen. If Rubio is put up for office, there will be a splitting of the Republican Party.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (23 votes cast)
    • minutemanComment by minuteman
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

      The party is already split between RINO types like Orin Hatch, Boehner, Olympia Snowe and Tea Party patriots like Alan West, Bachman and Palin.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (14 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:51 pm

      The 1970 law was repealed in 1795? Did you possibly tranpose some numbers there?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:56 pm

      LAPhill, it’s the TARDIS effect.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • barbarossa03Comment by barbarossa03
      May 1, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

      Teaparty “patriots”? – I almost spilled my coffee!

      “At the adoption of the Constitution a natural born citizen was one born in the country to citizen parents” – wrong Royce the Constitution never defines what a natural born citizen is.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 2, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

      @barbarossa03 The Constitution never defines “Freedom of Speech” or “Freedom of Religion” either. They kinda expected us to get smarter with age, not dumber.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  11. mike24Comment by mike24
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

    ‘Natural Born Citizen’ actually is well defined and settled law and has even been part of a SCOTUS review ( see Minor vs. Happersett). It is this: a state conferred at birth when born on American soil to parents both of whom are citizens (by whatever means) at the time of birth. I’ll note in passing that most of us knew this by 6th grade plus or minus…and cannot speak to the dreadful ignorance of Bret Baier.
    Born on American soil does not mean foreign embassies (that was accomplished in the first Congress and then rejected by the next), the canal zone, foreign bases or anything else. Both parents must be US citizens (natural born, naturalized–whatever)at the time of the birth of the child.
    This eliminates Obama (his father was never an US citizen regardless of where he was born), Rubio, McCain and others.
    Rubio’s parents apparently became US citizens in 1975–he was born in 1971–on that basis he is absolutely not qualified to be POTUS. To my knowledge Obama is not the first such unconstitutional/illegitimate ‘president’ (Chester Arthur apparently holds that distinction if memory serves.)

    By the by (and most importantly)…this implies that absolutely no official act of Obama’s has any legitimacy–no law, no appointment, no regulation, no treaty–nothing. Ditto for a Romney/Rubio ticket given that it would be ill formed.
    Many of us like Rubio for his views…but the bottom line is this: find someone else who is actually a natural born citizen…those of us who understand that it is the ‘Constitution’ that we are ‘conserving’ together with the moral law (hence, we are referred to as ‘conservatives’) cannot vote for such a man.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (39 votes cast)
    • James SeigfreidComment by James Seigfreid
      May 1, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

      Dead on the money, mike 24. Been screaming this from the rooftops for nearly 4 years…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (22 votes cast)
    • libertyladyComment by libertylady
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

      I believe a greater danger presents itself with all this speculation about Rubio, Jindal, et al…

      Obama’s ineligibility WILL come out at some time, we don’t know when or how. When it does, there will be an opportunity to TOTALLY NULLIFY all of his edicts, signed bills, SC justice appointments.. EVERYTHING. This will have to be very hard-fought, as the establishment of both parties will fight to sweep it under the rug, and “move forward”.

      For nullification to take place, the conservatives MUST NOT have compromised themselves by overlooking or abrogating the NBC clause by nomination or election of a non-eligible person for Prez or VP. If they do, the argument and opportunity to nullify Obama’s acts are LOST FOREVER.

      I wonder if the powers-that-be are doing this on purpose, so as not to have to deal with this in the future, or if they are just dumber than a box of rocks. What do you all think? Most of you are way smarter (and have way more integrity) than the dumba___es in DC.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (20 votes cast)
    • JoeEnglishComment by enraged8hobbit
      May 1, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

      Bret Baier’ ignorance come from the fact that he was taught by the up and comming communists or in other words the UNIONS. (seiu aft etc)In the 50′s and 60′s we were ALL taught the constitution. It is NOT taught in grade schools since the 70′s

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • MichaelNComment by MichaelN
      May 20, 2012 @ 10:17 pm

      Hear, hear Mike.

      It’s an absurd notion which suggests that the Framers in their duty and imperative to protect the new republic nation’s best interests, would have settled for anything less than those who would be the least likely to be affected by any foreign influence, persuasion, allegiance or claim, for the office of POTUS.

      The notion that the Framers relied on English common law (which accepts native-birth alone as sufficient to make a natural born subject) as the source for definition of Article II “natural born Citizen”, is also absurd, given that the SCOTUS in the Minor v. Happersett court stated that there were doubts that a child born in the US to alien parents was even a citizen at all.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  12. gene1357Comment by gene1357
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:41 pm

    This piece insults the intelligence of each and every reader of this blog. All citizen are not natural born citizen!
    Natural born means both parents must be citizens. This was clarified decades ago by the High Court.
    It is also covered in The Law of Nations, a compilation of the laws and traditions of the civilizations and nations and states of the old world. A study of natural law, some would argue.
    To become edified, follow this link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Nations
    That will do for a starter.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (18 votes cast)
    • slick5455Comment by slick5455
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

      I bet his mother didn’t know who his father was. Malcolm X, Frank Marshall Davis or Obama Sr. All we have is a list of suspects. He looks like Malcolm X and Davis spent much time with him, Obama Sr. did not and never married Stanley.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.2/5 (9 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

      Wrong. THere are two and only two types of citizens, natural born, and naturalized.

      Natural born are those who are citizens at birth.

      Naturalized become citizens at some point after birth.

      it is really that simple.

      Accept this.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (25 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 1, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

      @Chilidog. Why, and be precise, should we accept your word? Bring some evidence or be ignored.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
    • MichaelNComment by MichaelN
      May 20, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

      @chilidog

      WRONG!

      There are TWO types of born citizens.

      Those born native only, who are such via the 14th Amendment.

      Those like Virginia Minor, born native AND with natural descent from US citizen parents, who because of these TWO qualities, was held by the Supreme Court of the USA to be a “natural born citizen” WITHOUT ANY resort to the 14th Amendment.

      Yet the SCOTUS in the very same paragraph (in which Virginia was held to be a “natural born citizen”) the court made mention of a native-born child to alien parents who was doubted to be even a citizen at all.

      The SCOTUS in the Minor court, recognized and acknowledged that the doubts were with merit, as the SCOTUS stated these doubts were still to be solved.

      The reason Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and described as a “natural born citizen” by the SCOTUS was BECAUSE OF HER PARENTS being US citizens.

      The US Citizenship & Immigration Service also acknowledges that there are TWO TYPES of born citizens.

      http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

      Quote: (the operative word is “whichever”)
      “(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

      The words “shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922″, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”

      .

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  13. fbashplantComment by fbashplant
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

    When I joined the US Army in 1956 I was asked if I would like to be assigned to the CID. It was a very attractive position in military service. I accepted and filled out the paperwork. When it came to the nationality of my parents they found that my father was a Canadian citizen. I was born in the United States of a mother who was a citizen born in the US. But because my father was not I did not qualify for top secret clearance and so could not serve in the CID. How is it that a man who’s father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth can qualify to be president of the United States? ***!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (37 votes cast)
    • gene1357Comment by gene1357
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

      If BHO Sr. is even BHO Jr.’s true father! Frank Marshall Davis!
      copy/paste or click
      Half Sigma: Frank Marshall Davis, real father of Barrack “Obama”?
      or
      Obama’s Biological Father Frank Marshall Davis? – YouTube

      Sorry, the HTML didn’t translate.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (9 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

      So, gene1357, if what you are saying is true, based on birther logic, the president is a natural born citizen.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.5/5 (11 votes cast)
    • JamesTComment by JamesT
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:30 pm

      Well, chilidog, I’ll give you this much…. If what gene1357 says is true, then B.O. is certainly a bona-fide b*stard!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (11 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

      JamesT, nothing in the Constitution disqualifies ********.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (7 votes cast)
    • barbarossa03Comment by barbarossa03
      May 1, 2012 @ 10:39 pm

      You sure it was the fact that your father was not a citizen or that you had something in your past that you do not want to reveal here. I know plenty of fellow officers with parents born abroad that have received top secret clearances to do their duties for God and country.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:20 am

      @ Chilidog, Considering all your posts on this subject I have to ask, Are you really an idiot, or do you just playing one here?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (5 votes cast)
  14. BillComment by Bill
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

    I am in agreement with many of the comments re the Natural Born Citizen that the child must be born when both parents are citizen thia abrogates the issue of dual citizenship and loyality to only one country neither Marco Rubio or Barrach Obama (or Barry Sorento) qualify for that statu

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.2/5 (20 votes cast)
  15. jimsatnanComment by Jim
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

    An individual must have been born in the US with both parents, not just the mother, being US citizens. A number of responses are correct(per Vattel’s influence). GOPUSA and Bret Bair have it wrong. Father had duel citizenship–Kenya and Indonesia. When did Bret Bair become the expert with the final say on the subject. I am convinced Fox has marching orders to discredit the claim Obama is ineligible; just listen to what O’Reilly says on the subject. He puts a very nice spin on the subject.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (25 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

      Wrong.

      There are two, and only two classifications of citizenship.

      Natural born and naturalized.

      If you are born a citizen, then you are a natural born citizen.

      If you become a citizen at some point after you were born, then you are a naturalized citizen.

      It’s really that simple.

      Who your parents are has nothing to do with it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (21 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 1, 2012 @ 8:38 pm

      @Chilidog. Proof by bald assertion is not acceptable. Go get some facts to back up your assertion.

      “Its really that simple” Yes. It really is.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:48 am

      “@Chilidog. Proof by bald assertion is not acceptable. Go get some facts to back up your assertion.

      “Its really that simple” Yes. It really is.”

      nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/

      “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”15

      [14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

      This judgement has been referenced and affirmed at least 5 times in really real courts in the last year alone.

      Thats a fact you can believe in.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 2, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

      Thanks suranis. That is what we mean by facts. We may not believe them but there they are.

      Btw you did miss a cite to the 5 or more references and affirmations “at least 5 times in really real courts in the last year alone.”

      Details. Always with the details.

      Oh and really real courts have known to be in error. :( Ask SCOTUS for a list :)

      Now let’s look at what some of the founders said at the time.

      “Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen”, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.”
      http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-being-born-citizen-of-united-states.html

      Thus you see that the founders rejected the English common law opinion that being born on the soil of foreign parents who were under the kings authority was enough to be a citizen. They wanted to strengthen the restriction for the reason given and used the concept of natures law rather than English common law to define the necessary conditions.

      More facts for you to believe in.

      Silly founders. They should have defined the phrase “Freedom of Religion” better too.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 5, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

      Btw you did miss a cite to the 5 or more references and affirmations “at least 5 times in really real courts in the last year alone.”

      Details. Always with the details.

      OK

      Allen v. Obama et al , No. C20121317 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct., Mar. 7,2012) (dismissing case challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the 2012 ballot;finding that Obama is a”natural born citizen” under Wong Kim Ark ; andexpressly rejecting argument that Minor v. Happersett holds otherwise), appeal filed (Ariz. App. Ct. 2d Div., Mar. 8, 2012)

      Ankeny v. Daniels, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“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 citizen’s” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents”) transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010)

      Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a ”natural born citizen”), decision adopted as final (Ga. Sec’y of State Feb. 7, 2012). appeal dismissed , No. 2012CV211398 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2012), recons. denied (Mar. 14, 2012),appeal denied, No. S12D1180 (Ga. Apr. 11,2012).

      Galasso v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012)(initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position and finding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark)), decision adopted as final (N.J.Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012)

      Freeman v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 103 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing Officer Recommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate“ clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a “natural born citizen”), objection overruled (Ill.Board of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012)

      Jackson v. Obama, 12 SOEB GP 104 (Ill. Bd. of Elections Hearing OfficerRecommendation Jan. 27, 2012) (Obama’s birth certificate “clearly establishes” his eligibility for office as a“natural born citizen”), objection overruled (Ill. Bd.of Elections, Feb. 3, 2012)

      Powell v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216823-60-MALIHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility toappear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”), decision adopted as final (Ga. Sec’y of StateFeb. 7, 2012),appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211528 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012),motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1077 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012)

      Purpura v Obama, No. STE 04588-12 (N.J. Office of Admin Law Apr. 10, 2012)(initial decision rejecting challenge to Obama’s 2012 nominating position andfinding that, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency per Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark )), decision adopted as final (N.J.Sec’y of State Apr. 12, 2012)

      Strunk v. NY Bd. of Elections et al,No. 006500/2011 (N.Y. King County Supr.Ct. Apr. 12, 2012) (dismissing complaint challenging, among other things,President Obama’s eligibility to his office; expressly rejecting the birther claim that Obama is ineligible on the basis of his father’s citizenship as frivolous, and issuing a show cause order as to why sanctions should not be imposed upon plaintiff)

      Swensson v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1216218-60-MALIHI (Ga.Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”),decision adopted as final(Ga. Sec’y of State Feb. 7,2012), No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct., Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied,No. S12D1076 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga.Apr. 4, 2012)

      Tisdale v. Obama,No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (orderdismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “[i]t is well settled that those born in theUnited States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”),
      appeal pending, No. 12-1124 (4thCir., filed Jan. 30, 2012)

      1 The Powell v. Obama case, while a separate objection/action, was consolidated with Farrar v. Obama before the OSAH, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the trial court appeal.

      2 The Purpura et al v. Obama case, while a separate objection/action, was consolidated with Galasso v.Obama before the New Jersey Office of Administrative law and New Jersey Secretary of State.

      3 The Swensson v. Obama case, while a separate objection/action, was consolidated with Farrar v. Obama before the OSAH, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the trial court appeal.

      Welden v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215137-60-MALIHI (Ga.Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012) (rejecting challenge to Obama’s eligibility to appear on 2012 ballot; finding that Obama was born in U.S. and is a “natural born citizen”),decision adopted as final (Ga. Sec’y of State Feb. 7,2012), appeal dismissed, No. 2012CV211527 (Ga. Fulton County Super. Ct.,Mar. 2, 2012), motion for injunction denied, No. S12D1059 (Ga. Mar. 13, 2012), appeal denied (Ga. Apr. 4, 2012)

      That’s the list SO FAR.

      And that’s not even a fraction of the 125 cases the birthers have lost.

      Oh and really real courts have known to be in error. :( Ask SCOTUS for a list :)

      Sure, thats why birthers keep citing Dred Scott V Sandford. (Concidered the worst and most racist decision the supreme court has ever made, and resulted in the drafting of the 14th amendment to overturn it)

      I’ll deal with you quoting Mario Apuzzo not actually quoting what Hamilton actually said tomorrow.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  16. John BrownComment by John Brown
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:53 pm

    The big question is if Romeny is a natural born citizen?

    I suspect not if it gets investigated on facts, so this is why GOP shills twist the meaning. They don’t want it to be an issue with their own RomneyCare savoir.

    Just got my RNC “survey”, begging for money, they are totally clueless. I doubt I will give money to any Republican this year,unlike previous years.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.2/5 (9 votes cast)
    • gene1357Comment by gene1357
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

      When Mitt’s father ran, he was not eligible!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
  17. fshambComment by fshamb
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

    I want to see US 8 1401 and when did this take effect I don’t believe that rules with the constitution

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • SuncoastComment by Suncoast
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

      Be sure and read the words nationals and citizens…it does NOT say be natural-born citizens. Any way…
      Here tis:
      The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
      (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
      (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
      (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
      (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
      (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
      (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
      (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
      (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
      (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
      (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

      “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;”

      I believe that that covers Obama, Rubio and Jindal.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (19 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 1, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

      Supporting evidence that Obama was born in the United States is missing.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)
    • barbarossa03Comment by barbarossa03
      May 1, 2012 @ 11:01 pm

      So Vicki show us your conspiracy theorist evidence of the missing supporting evidence. Even Donald Trump gave up on that theory

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:30 am

      Suncoast has given the text of US 8 Section 1401, and once more Chilidog shows his seeming limitless ignorance of this subject, not to mention the numerous requests from Vicki to back up his point. The above U.S. Code defines those who are “nationals and citizens”, nothing there about “Natural Born Citizen”. Will someone please buy Chilidog a clue?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:42 am

      @heyrob

      Ok you want something about natural Born Citizens

      James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

      “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

      So James Madison, the guy that WROTE the constitution, statesthat the children of aliens are Natural Born Citizens.

      OH, but I hear you cry, Subject is not the same as citizen! Oh contrare

      Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).

      “And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

      So yeah, you are wrong.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      May 2, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

      Comment by barbarossa03
      ——————————-
      So Vicki show us your conspiracy theorist evidence of the missing supporting evidence.
      ——————————-

      Evidence is inherent in the absence of an actual LFBC. That someone stopped looking for that which is not there does not mean that it is not there but until YOU provide the evidence it is logical to presume that the LFBC does not exist.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 2, 2012 @ 2:13 pm

      What absence?

      Photos taken by the NBC White House correspondent on the day of the April 27, 2011 press conference:

      http://lockerz.com/s/96540937
      http://lockerz.com/s/96540721

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      May 2, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

      ypw510, Guess you have not heard, Obama Admin. Legal department (Junior? lawyer in Attorney General’s Office) adminited it NJ Court that those documents were forgeries! They had been poorly photoshopped if not outright attempt to lie using a completely false document by Obama’s henchmen.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  18. getoutComment by getout
    May 1, 2012 @ 3:58 pm

    SCENARIO: My parents are citizen’s of France. Mother is pregnant with me and goes into labor and here I come as we are in a jet flying over the Atlantic Ocean to visit the USA. What country am I a citizen of? (Lost in Atlantis?) I say wherever both parents reside LEGALLY is the where the child is a citizen.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (14 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

      Well it would be pretty irresponsible for the airline to let you mother on the plane, but you would be French.

      Your parents would not be in the U.S. until they were on U.S. soil.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (11 votes cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 1, 2012 @ 7:05 pm

      The status of people born in international waters or airspace is an interesting question. It would have to be 12 nautical miles from the coastline to be considered US airspace.

      http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

      “c. Under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, articles 17–21, all aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are registered, and may not have multiple nationalities. For births, the nationality law of the aircraft’s “nationality” may be applicable, and for births that occur in flight while the aircraft is not within the territory or airspace of any State, it is the only applicable law that may be pertinent regarding acquisition of citizenship by place of birth. However, if the aircraft is in, or flying over the territory of another State, that State may also have concurrent jurisdiction.”

      However. The US practices jus soli citizenship and most Constitutional scholars agree that being born on US soil alone is enough for natural born citizenship for Presidential eligibility.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • CharlieComment by vietnamvet
      May 24, 2012 @ 11:14 am

      Because she was so near giving birth, Obama’s mother was not allowed to fly.
      That is why Obama was born in Kenya.
      That is why he was a British subject at birth.
      That is why he tried to change the Constitution regarding Presidential qualifications.
      That is why he had to forge Hawaiian birth certificates.
      That is why the attorney representing him In North Caroliona admitted his documents are forgeries.
      That is why he should be booted out of the White House.
      That is why Jindal and Rubio cannot be President.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  19. Kathy NelsonComment by Kathy Nelson
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:00 pm

    WOW! First fuzzy math,now fuzzy natural born citizen,soon will be able to believe Obama is a genuine constitutionalist.
    Gee thanks Bret, all Americans can sleep better tonight just knowing you’re wiser than the Founders.
    THINK NOT!

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (23 votes cast)
  20. getoutComment by getout
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

    Comment for Sweet Caroline…Alaska and Hawaii both became states in 1959.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

      Even if Obama were born in 1958, he would still be a natural born citizen. All persons born in Hawaii since 1900 were U.S. citizens at birth as per U.S. law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • heyrobComment by heyrob
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:33 am

      @chilidog, for once you’re partially right, U.S. Citizens, but NOT natural born citizens. Big difference.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      May 2, 2012 @ 6:36 pm

      There is no proof that Obama or his mother were even in the US when he was born. The only document produced so far has been admitted in NJ Court by the Attorney General’s Office as being Photoshopped or even botched attempt of making a false document before FAX / Copied.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
  21. capitalistnatureComment by capitalistnature
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

    Looks like I can be president. My father born in the United States and my mother born abroad but later becoming a US citizen. I must be good to go.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

      If you were born here, and your parents were not diplomats, as long as you meet the age and residency requirements, yep, you are good to go.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (16 votes cast)
  22. marioapuzzoesqComment by marioapuzzoesq
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

    This information on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not correct. You can make a more informed decision after reading my article entitled,

    Fox News Is Spreading False Information on the Meaning of a “Natural Born Citizen”, at

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/fox-news-is-spreading-false-information.html

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.4/5 (15 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

      Fox is correct.

      Too bad you lost your court case in NJ, Mario.

      Don’t you ever learn?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (19 votes cast)
    • libertyladyComment by libertylady
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

      Really nasty comment, Chilidog. You should be ashamed of yourself. Mr. Apuzzo has spent much time, money, and (I imagine) tears, in pursuit of constitutional justice for the American people. What have YOU contributed besides nasty sarcasm?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

      libertylady, Mario is a DUI fixer.

      he is out of his league here.

      The DNC sent a junior associate and she ran legal rings around him.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (18 votes cast)
    • SuncoastComment by Suncoast
      May 1, 2012 @ 5:29 pm

      Good article and right on point, Mario

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (12 votes cast)
    • barbarossa03Comment by barbarossa03
      May 1, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

      I think Mario Puzo’s The Godfather was based more on fact than this article

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  23. poorgrandchildren.comComment by poorgrandchildren.com
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

    Other comments said it best. This article is wrong, wrong, wrong! When did GOPUSA start believing Left Stream Media?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.1/5 (15 votes cast)
    • chilidogComment by chilidog
      May 1, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

      The article is correct.

      The Supreme court in the Wong Kim Ark case settled this issue over 110 years ago.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (14 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:45 am

      Since 1610, which is when Natural Born citizenship was defined.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      May 2, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

      Wong Kim Ark did not settle Natural born citizen at all!. Can’t you read or do you just read what you want to hear?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  24. Comment by Anonymous
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:32 pm

    Whoevever wrote that Rubio and Obama were eligible flunked Natural Born Citizen 101.

    VA:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.6/5 (17 votes cast)
    • KMcCComment by KMcC
      May 2, 2012 @ 6:42 pm

      Rubio for VP is good to go! No requirement to be NATURAL Born Citizen, just a plan old Citizen will do. However, leagally he could not take over if the President died, the Speaker of the House would have to become President.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

      The 12th amendment of the US Constitution states that the VP has the same eligibility requirements as the Presidency itself.

      Which does not matter as Rubio is actually eligible.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  25. ShadowMerlinComment by shadowmerlin
    May 1, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

    Most people responding here fail to differentiate between “natural born” and “native born”. In common speech there may be no difference, but in legal terms there is a huge difference. SCOTUS ruled on this in Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

    “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.”

    The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

    THAT is a definitive answer and refutes all the supposed logic others have stated here.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (17 votes cast)
    • ypw510Comment by ypw510
      May 1, 2012 @ 11:04 pm

      SCOTUS really had a way with words.

      So “natural born citizens” are distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Therefore is one is not a natural born citizen at birth, one is by definition an alien or foreigner by birth. However, later SCOTUS cases established that one is born a US citizen by nature of birth on US soil (US v Wong Kim Ark).

      There are several court decisions in the past few years that state that the Wong Kim Ark case is definitive that a person born on US soil (save some specific cases) is a natural born citizen. The dissent in the WKA case stated that since he was considered a citizen at birth by his birth on US soil, then he would be eligible for the Presidency.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • suranisComment by suranis
      May 2, 2012 @ 10:36 am

      Perkins V Elg. 1939

      http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/325/case.html

      “Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;

      The Supreme Court therefore states that native Born Citizens can be president.

      Your move.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Fresh Ink Archives

  • October 2014
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer