The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.

You may add The Boston Globe to the growing list of influential media sources who have expressed the opinion that simply being born in the United States does not qualify one to be President.  Recently, this blog pointed to a similar opinion in the New York Tribune.  These pre-dated Breckenridge Long’s similar opinion as stated in the Chicago Legal News.

Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka  “The People’s Lawyer“.  (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the “People’s Lawyer” of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)

The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed.  A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen.  A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen;  the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens.  But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President.

Bridgham further states:

“A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution.  The very definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,”…I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning.” (Link to full article.)

So, The People’s Lawyer (and the Boston Globe) can now be listed as “birthers”.

Your legislators continue to dodge the issue claiming that it’s a “distraction”.  The Constitution is a distraction?  Only to a traitor.  Everyone should note with very careful particularity the name of each elected official who refers to the Constitution as a distraction.  These are traitors to their oath of office.

The question we are raising is not something made up to deal with Obama alone.  As I have stressed many times throughout the history of this blog, those who are “native born” are not necessarily “natural born”.  The Boston Globe published this back in 1896.  In that same year, the New York Tribune echoed the sentiment with regard to the Labor Party Candidate, Johannes Schurmann.  And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”


Recently, I published a report detailing the US State Department’s long standing rule of recognizing dual allegiance.  In that report, Secretary of State Lansing informed Senator Lodge that a US citizen – who was not born of citizen parents – could be forced into foreign military duty (even against the United States).  Long maintained that, as to such a citizen, the US had no diplomatic authority to demand his release.

Alternatively, Secretary of State Long stressed that if the child had been born of citizen parents, the child would be released to the US since the child would owe no allegiance to the foreign nation.

The issue of dual allegiance is not a joke and certainly no distraction (other than to those who disrespect our Constitution).  At the very least, those who support Obama should support the need for his eligibility to be reviewed by the US Supreme Court.  To leave the issue in perpetual limbo is to endanger the nation.

If Obama is eligible, so are the potential sons of foreign despots who hate this country.  Take your pick.  If Kim Jong Il or Osama bin Laden were to impregnate an American woman who gave birth in the US, that child could be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces based upon the precedent set by Obama.

Those states considering bills which would require Presidential candidates to prove they did not have dual allegiance at the time of their births are on the front lines of this battle.  I have come back to this blog in order to support their effort.  I hope there is at least one state in the union which has legislators who care enough about this nation’s future to risk the scorn of media propaganda.

Obama has admitted that his birth status was governed by Great Britain.  Therefore, he owed a dual allegiance to both the US and the monarchy.  This is not disputed.  The simple question we have raised, as have others throughout our history, is whether such a person, who at the time of his birth serves two masters, can be considered to be a natural born citizen of the US.

I don’t agree with everything Long stood for, and Bridgham’s thought process would have made McCain eligible, which I do not agree with.  Readers of this blog know that I don’t believe McCain was eligible.  The fact that he even ran for President, having been born in Panama, shows a cavalier and selfish attitude which was shared by his opponent.  True statesmen do not subject their nation to a crisis such as is now before us.  Thanks fellas.  Your self-importance is staggering.

History shows that Obama’s eligibility is, at best, questionable.  I don’t expect his supporters to back down, and I don’t even expect them to recognize the historical validity of the question.  To do so would be to admit that history does not provide a true foothold for Obama in the oval office.  His foothold depends upon ignoring, mocking and denying proven historical facts and debate.

Any legislator who thinks the Constitution is a distraction is an enemy of the Constitution.  Vote them out.

This nation was won by bravery and law.  I hope there is enough respect for those principles in state houses to get the job done because your federal legislators have sold you out.  Once again, it’s up to the states to get it right.  By enacting a bill which denies those born with dual allegiance to POTUS ballot access, the issue should end up at the doors of the Supreme Court.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.

About these ads

62 Responses to “The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility.”

  1. By Long’s argument McCain would be Ineligible.
    Amendments to the Panamanian Constitution before McCain’s birth took away automatic birthright citizenship, but gave children born of aliens the choice to establish residence and assume Panamanian Citizenship at the age of majority. Long theorized that the ability to choose would negate the possibility of natural born Citizenship, as a natural born Citizen would have no such choice. That is a strong argument against r. Apuzzo’s argument that Vattel would have thought McCain natural born by “children of armies of the state born abroad” exceptions.
    Perkins v. Elg also talked about (in dicta) how foreign states could force non natural born US Citizens into military service w/o any recourse for the US.
    While Dr. Kate’s site is a little too wildly conspiratorial, and religious, she has a good post up about Federal Money being used to Bribe states into not enacting eligibility laws. Traitors all around.

  2. This latest series of research finding has been fascinating, to say the least. Kudos to you, Leo, and all those who continue to search for the truth.

    Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that all we have uncovered up to this point is a lot of opinions, and nothing that could be considered a legal definition of the term “natural-born citizen”. Without that *definition* there is nowhere to go, no way to stop any person who wants to run for office from doing so. The states can pass any law they want, but if it doesn’t contain a definition of “natural-born citizen” in it, it won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. In fact, it might do irreparable harm, as most of these laws are only asking a candidate to provide a birth certificate in order to prove eligibility.

    Without a legal definition of “natural-born citizen”, nothing else matters.

  3. Khalid Al Mansour Says:

    You are right Mick. John McCain was born off-base and it took a resolution of congress to get around the fact that he was ineligible. There is no getting around the fact that Obama Sr. Never even entertained the idea of US citizenship —-

    ed. snipped insulting remarks. keep it civil.

    and the senate resolution didnt get around the fact of McCain’s ineligibility. that has no force of law, it’s just an opinion. – leo

  4. Bridgham’s article, while seeming to be siding with Gray as to native, also sides with the 1904 Albany Law Journal article by Morse which reads:

    [I]f it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.[end quote]

    Nearly 2 years later, an additional historical reference brings the truth full circle once again. :)

  5. If the current Boston Gob published an article on this subject, they would opine the opposite…

    ed. this is their only official position as far as my research can tell. – leo

  6. Richard Michael Says:

    Can we all stipulate that:
    1. The term ‘natural-born citizen’ is not defined in the U.S. Constitution.
    2. Without amending the Constitution, no State Constitution or Federal or State statute can define the term for purposes of its constitutional usage.
    3. Under the rules of construction long-recognized by the courts in the United States, only the Supreme Court of the United States can define a term used, but not defined, in the U.S. Constitution.

  7. thinkwell Says:

    Leo,

    It would be informative to know what the Founders and early generation Americans considered the nbC status to be of a child born to an unmarried woman, both for the case when no man claimed the child and for the more complicated case when the presumed father laid claim to the child. (Perhaps this would have required his adopting the child? Also, would have whether the father was single or already married been important? Hmmm…) Note that this is not a trivial question since a significant percentage of today’s population would probably be considered bastards by the Founders. :(

    Would a child born to and raised by an unmarried woman have been considered Constitutionally disqualified from being President? With an unknown father, doubts would always exist that such a child met the nbC requirement of two citizen parents at the moment of birth. But, on the other hand, being born to only one parent, i.e. a citizen mother, would ensure no possibility of divided allegiance.

    Have you or your researcher (or any readers of this blog) come across any historical records that might answer this question? I think knowing the Founders’ thoughts on this would be enlightening as to the reasoning behind the nbC requirement.

  8. Richard Michael Says:

    Can we all stipulate that:
    1. The term ‘natural-born citizen’ is not defined in the U.S. Constitution.
    2. Without amending the Constitution, no State Constitution or Federal or State statute can define the term for purposes of its constitutional usage.
    3. Under the rules of construction long-recognized by the courts in the United States, only the Supreme Court of the United States can define a term used, but not defined, in the U.S. Constitution.
    4. There are only two theories of birth-right citizenship:
    a. jus sanguinis, citizenship at birth by right of blood (parentage), and
    b. jus soli, citizenship at birth by right of soil (birthplace).

    ed. there are more than two theories of birthright citizenship… by blood, by soil and by statute. sometimes they get mixed into each other. – leo

  9. thinkwell Says:

    I think there is good evidence that the Founders intended the phrase natural born Citizen as used in the Constitution to be perhaps even more restrictive than natural law as described by E. de Vattel. He wrote that the naturals/natives or indigenous citizens were, in general, “those who are born in the country, of citizen parents,” but also included exceptions for those born out of country to citizen parents and born free of any claim of foreign allegiance.

    One only need look to the original Naturalization Act of 1790 and its first revision in 1795 to see the Founders’ intent in this regard. The original Act stated: “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 […]” whereas, in the revised 1795 version, this was changed to just plain “citizens.” The “natural born” part was dropped. Why was that?

    The original Act most likely must have been considered to have been in conflict with the Constitution (which cannot be superseded by a mere Act of Congress), therefore the revised Act informs us as to the Founders’ understanding of at least some of the intended restrictive meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen.

    U.S. controlled territories are not States, so a person such as recent Presidential candidate, John McCain, even though born to citizen parents, was very clearly born “beyond Sea” and “out of the limits of the United States.” Thus, by the guidance of the history of the Naturalization Act, he cannot be a natural born Citizen in the Constitutional sense (even if he were to be “a child born in the Armies of the State” as defined by Vattel).

    In the context of his time I suppose that Vattel would be referring to the entourage of wives and families that sometimes accompanied an army on extended campaign (including during an occupation). A modern day equivalent would be like when our troops were in hostile administrative occupation in post WWII Germany or Japan, whereas the situation in Panama when McCain was born seems more like a non-wartime business venture or like our troops being stationed by consent quasi-permanently in a friendly territory or country today.

    While at war, the accompanying entourage is an encapsulated little bit of the home culture on-the-move. While stationed for long periods within the territory of a friendly foreign ally, the likelihood of mixing and absorbing the culture is much greater. The latter case seems, at the very least, like a gray zone situation more akin to a birth occurring while on an extended business assignment – I wonder what Vattel would have thought of that?

    In any case, the history of the Naturalization Act seems to add further restrictions beyond those noted by Vattel. Clearly the Founders (for they were still active at the time of the Naturalization Act and its first revision) thought that to “be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States,” even if born to citizen parents, was not enough to make one natural born in the Constitutional sense.
    _________________________

    NBC = blood + dirt : NO dual allegiances or foreign influences allowed, just born by Nature (not by statute) 100 percent red-blooded all American.

    Clearly, merely being a “born Citizen” was not sufficient to qualify one for the Presidency (assuming the other qualifications were met), because, if it were, the Founders would not have needed to add the qualifier “natural” to the phrase, “born Citizen”, yet they did. In their writings they left us, they stated that they wanted to protect the Presidency from foreign influence, hence the requirement for a “natural born Citizen,” that is, born exclusively a citizen of the U.S.A. with no possibility of any other allegiance or citizenship.

    ed. please do not use bold print. reserved for my comments. ty – leo

  10. thinkwell Says:

    juriggs wrote:

    The states can pass any law they want, but if it doesn’t contain a definition of “natural-born citizen” in it, it won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. In fact, it might do irreparable harm, as most of these laws are only asking a candidate to provide a birth certificate in order to prove eligibility.

    Without a legal definition of “natural-born citizen”, nothing else matters.

    Justin,

    You are missing the point! A a properly written state eligibility law (one that requires release of legal records directly proving birth in-country to citizen parents in order to be listed on the state ballot) would force the SCOTUS to step up to the plate (they couldn’t very well deny standing to an entire state).

    Also, note that there is a subtle, but important difference between a state universally defining the legal meaning of natural born Citizen and a state simply setting state requirements to allow a candidate to get listed on their state ballot. While the former is not the business of one state to impose on the other states, a state could make a good case that is it has every right to do the latter. Then it would be up to the SCOTUS to actively prove that the state had trampled upon the meaning and intent of the natural born eligibility requirement.

    In Obama’s case, either he backs off and does not get on the ballot for that state (probably could still have write-ins counted, a la Alaska) or he has to ask for the SCOTUS to rule on the meaning of nbC. As long as we have an iota of respect for the Constitution left in this country, either outcome would be a disaster for the Obama-fraud. Even the regime-stream media would have to admit that the usurper’s finely woven cloak of eligibility was completely transparent and bogus. The ruse would lose all credibility and the obots themselves would proclaim that the emperor truly has no clothes.

  11. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    (I suggested you for an Alex Jones interview… email was sent to writers@infowars.com… look out for a response… good luck)

    Will everyone who stops here and reads or comments send a request to Alex Jones to interview Leo for a radio interview. Alex Jones’s site is infowars.com or prisonplanet.com, and you can send your request to writers@infowars.com.

    Thank you.

    P.s.: If you’ve sent a request to Alex please say so in your post so we can determine Leo’s chances at an interview.

  12. It’s even worse than you imagine Leo. If you follow the “natural born” equals “born a citizen under any circumstances” crowd, Kim or Bin Laden wouldn’t have to impregnate an American women. They could impregnate any women from anywhere as long as she had the baby in the US.

    As for a state making it law that candidates have to prove they were born in one of the states and their parents were both citizens at that time, I think that’s feasible. I also don’t think the SCOTUS could do anything about it since it wouldn’t be contrary to or in violation of any federal law.

    ed. good points. i was just highlighting the precedent Obama sets since he was born to a US mother. but I agree with you otherwise. – leo

  13. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    What bothers me is that the Supreme Court is the only institution that has authority to lawfully determine the definition of “natural born Citizen.” I think the people writing Leo’s posts and responses have put more hours and meticulous research into this than any Supreme Court judge or politician has even cared to. Our relationship to the Supreme Court in this regard is like being a kid whose parents hand us over to an abusive aunt and uncle without a thought or care in the world.

  14. thinkwell,

    is there a properly written state eligibility law yet? I ask sincerely, because I haven’t followed the story all that closely. In the limited amount of time I’ve put into the issue, I haven’t seen one yet – most, if not all of the legislators writing these laws have no clue regarding the subtleties of the issue. They just want to force Obama to show a birth certificate.

    It sounds like you might have more information than me on this issue. If it’s not asking too much, maybe you could tell me which state(s) you think have the best chance of passing a law that will achieve the aim we’re all seeking…

    ed. Arizona had 2544 but it’s not goin anywhere since the sell out to SB 1308… Montanta has a good one, as does Tennessee, Nebraska and I believe Georgia too. All of these required the candidate to affirm that he was never a dual citizen or that both of his parents were citizens. – leo

  15. Thomas Morato Says:

    Welcome back Leo! Another excellent post which reveals even more about the historical expectations and meaning of NBC.

    In BHO’s case, I have no doubt of his ineligibility from his non-citizen father. On the topic of McCain… I know your position and respect it. But as a retired military member, I’m somewhat torn on the issue. If a child of mine born of two US citizens (in my case two NBCs) abroad while serving the country be denied a presidential run seems somewhat unfair.

    However, no constitutional definition exists for NBC and believe we all agree that’s where the problem truly exists. Until legally answered by SCOTUS, technically any US citizen can claim NBC status and make a run for it. In the case of Obama and McCain, at least McCain got a Senate Resolution on the subject. Obama (having even a more questionable birth situation) has absolutely nothing. And on top that, has never revealed to the public a valid long form birth certificate.

    Delete if necessary, but somewhat of a funny joke I found in another forum from a blogger after Obama last week claimed it was a “fact” he was born in Hawaii…

    Knock knock…
    Who’s there?
    Kenya…
    Kenya who?
    Kenya show me your birth certificate?

    ed. McCain should not have run and should have attacked Obama’s eligibility by NOT running. he should have stood up and said, I was not born in this country and while I may or may not be eligible, I do not want to drag my country into dangerous territory by setting an example whereby those not born here may be CIC. Obama is also not eligible as he owed dual allegiance at birth…” That would have been a true statesman’s response. But not McCain or Obama. No. They were just so important weren’t they. had to be them… and now we have this. – leo

  16. I contend that the Founding Fathers used the term natural born citizen to assure we had future presidents born with no foreign allegiance. Vattel’s natural law definition of natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents) meets this intent. But so would a child born abroad to US citizen parents in a country without jus soli.

    I therefore contend that if McCain’s eligibility had been put before the Supreme Court, that he probably would have been ruled eligible. McCain is not a natural born citizen according to Vattel’s natural law definition, but he was born with no foreign allegiance, which I contend was the intent of the Founding Fathers.

    I say “probably” because of the option that McCain had, according to Panamanian law, of becoming a Panamanian citizen at the age of majority. The Supreme Court would have had to decide whether this option presented sufficient affinity to Panama to have been a conflict of allegiance. Given no evidence that McCain knew of this option, along with his evident allegiance to the US, I contend the Supreme Court would have probably found McCain to have been free of foreign allegiance at birth (and all his life) and eligible.

    However, the Supreme Court might not have ruled this way, and the existence of this doubt probably explains McCain’s unwillingness to challenge Obama’s eligibility.

    ed. having the choice alone makes one ineligible. McCain hurt this nation by running because he could not take the high ground as to Obama’s non-eligibility. Furthermore, my research leads me to believe McCain was a Panama citizen at birth. – leo

  17. Leo,

    Thank you very much for this last post. Your words and thoughts are expressed with great clarity.

    I have learned a tremendous amount from you over the last several years concerning this ongoing eligibility issue.

    I am sure ready for all of this it to end, one way or another.

    Thank you, thank you very much.

    Wm. Pugh

  18. thinkwell,

    “…A a properly written state eligibility law (one that requires release of legal records directly proving birth in-country to citizen parents in order to be listed on the state ballot) would force the SCOTUS to step up to the plate (they couldn’t very well deny standing to an entire state). ”

    Assuming that a candidate wishes to challenge. However, if the state law clearly asks for proof of both parents citizenship along with vital records proving place of birth, then it might wake up many citizens who haven’t paid attention and turn the polling data against any candidate who might want to challenge.

  19. Here is what NBC means to me. Nature. how nature has baby animals.

    A local squirrel will mate with another local squirrel and give birth to a NBC squirrel.

    Now take a female Giraffe in Hawaii. A male giraffe is shipped via airplane from Kenya. It gets to Hawaii and donates its sperm into the female and goes back to Kenya via airplane. Nature does not operate that way. NO WAY. The baby giraffe is not a NBC American giraffe in Hawaii.

    The baby has to come about in the way that NAture would have a baby be born. with no interference. no not natural airplane rides half was around the world and back.

    When I was 5 years old in 1948 Chicago. All the kids had it perfectly correct. We used to talk about being eligible to be president. All the kids knew that you had to have both parents be citizens at your birth and that the kids had to be born in America.

    I do not consider military children born overseas even on military hospitals as being NBC. I say NO to that. Let the mother have the baby born in America.

    I am willing to put more constraints on the childhood. All those years in another country would eliminate a candidate. I want to see an American born stay in America except for maybe a 2 week vacation in the summer. Once you go to school in another country. sorry no deal. Too much linkage to a foreign country. I want ONLY a 100% PURE American Natural Born Citizen. And that is not asking enough. I want more than that. I want an honest person.

  20. If the eligibility issue were to make it to SCOTUS from a case where a lower court ruled against Obama then SCOTUS would hear it, but when the lower court has thrown out a case such as Mario Apuzo’s case, SCOTUS always denies a writ.

    This is because if SCOTUS hears any case on Obama’s eligibility it gets attention and the nation is forced to deal with it and it will come to light that the federal government at all levels has protected a possible usurper while he has absorbed the powers of the presidency.

    I believe when SCOTUS finally hears the case it will be a coin flip as to whether they affirm Obama or negate his 2012 campaign. The easy way for them is to affirm Obama, but in the long term that will cause more damage to Obama and our government than if SCOTUS simply admits the truth that Obama is not eligible. The reason being the states are correct to question Obama’s legitimacy and it is no longer a secret he is probably ineligible. A ruling for Obama by SCOTUS would be a ruling directly aimed at state sovereignty. Such a masquerade by the federal judiciary would tear the nation further apart in a Constitutional crisis of major proportions. I am not at all convinced this is not what Obama has wanted all along and while I previously believed Obama would not run for a second term, I think the potential for such a chaotic outcome will ensure he does.

  21. From a Founding Father .. there IS a perfectly understandable and extremely prudent reason that the Founders expressly chose and allocated a different citizenship status for the highest office in the land.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    TO THE PRINTERS OF THE BOSTON PATRIOT. – John Adams, The Works of John Adams, vol. 9 (Letters and State Papers 1799-1811) [1854]

    Edition used:

    The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: with a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations, by his Grandson Charles Francis Adams (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1856). 10 volumes. Vol. 9.

    Author: John Adams
    Editor: Charles Francis Adams
    Part of: The Works of John Adams, 10 vols.

    *snip*

    Mr. Hamilton’s erroneous conceptions of the public opinion may be excused by the considerations that he was not a native of the United States; that he was born and bred in the West Indies till he went to Scotland for education, where he spent his time in a seminary of learning till seventeen years of age, after which no man ever perfectly acquired a national character; then entered a college at New York, from whence he issued into the army as an aid-de-camp.

    In these situations he could scarcely acquire the opinions, feelings, or principles of the American people.

    His error may be excused by the further consideration, that his time was chiefly spent in his pleasures, in his electioneering visits, conferences, and correspondences, in propagating prejudices against every man whom he thought his superior in the public estimation, and in composing ambitious reports upon finance, while the real business of the treasury was done by Duer, by Wolcott, and even, for some time and in part, by Tench Coxe.

    *snip*

    My worthy fellow-citizens! Our form of government, inestimable as it is, exposes us, more than any other, to the insidious intrigues and pestilent influence of foreign nations.

    Nothing but our inflexible neutrality can preserve us.

    The public negotiations and secret intrigues of the English and the French have been employed for centuries in every court and country of Europe.

    Look back to the history of Spain, Holland, Germany, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Italy, and Turkey, for the last hundred years. How many revolutions have been caused!

    How many emperors and kings have fallen victims to the alternate triumphs of parties, excited by Englishmen or Frenchmen!

    And can we expect to escape the vigilant attention of politicians so experienced, so keen-sighted, and so rich?

    If we convince them that our attachment to neutrality is unchangeable, they will let us alone; but as long as a hope remains, in either power, of seducing us to engage in war on his side and against his enemy, we shall be torn and convulsed by their manœuvres.

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=2107&search=%22native%22&chapter=161260&layout=html#a_2837830

    Thank you for ALL you’ve done and are doing. It’s seems sadly true that
    the preservation of our country is in our hands. Sincerely hope I’m wrong ..that someone in proper authority will say “ENOUGH!”

  22. “ed. having the choice alone makes one ineligible. McCain hurt this nation by running because he could not take the high ground as to Obama’s non-eligibility. Furthermore, my research leads me to believe McCain was a Panama citizen at birth. – leo”

    Concerning your comment, did McCain received US citizenship by statute? If not so by statute, how then? He did not receive US citizenship by naturalization, did he?

    If all this is true, and McCain did not receive US citizenship by statute, then how is McCain even a Senator?

    I can only conclude that McCain received US citizenship by statue. Therefore, since he did it this way, he has no claim to natural born citizenship since it is impossible for a natural born citizen to receive such a circumstance of birth by statute. Yes, Leo, I see your problem with McCain!

  23. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    This is what’s going to happen next election…

    Several states are going to ask presidential condidates to prove their eligibleness to be on the ballot. Candidates are then going to go to the Supreme Court for a definition of “natural bon Citizen”; of course, begging the definition be lax enough to let anyone in. The Supreme Court in seeing the small opening left open by the term “natural born Citizen” is not going to define the term, but, rather, they are going to reform the Prseidential voting process. Any state declaring an eligibility test will be nixed from the election process starting immediately. This will cause a public uprising, which will be contained by martial law. A detention camp will be built in the center of America, and anyone opposing the neo-idiot party will be throw in, along with the U.S. Constitution and free thinking to boot. In the detention camp, chemicals will be put into the drinking water that make the Americans infertile. Then one day, one last person in the camp will be standing. This last dedicated person to the American Dream will be put in front of the Supreme Court to be be plummeted with all the reasons why they and all their dead patriotic bros and sisses were put into the camp. The last patriot, in a turn of events, will show their true face to be that of God! God in person, but SCOTUS won’t care. They’ll want to know what Obama thinks….because you know he is the messiah right?…lol!

  24. @slcraig, On the previous article you posted:

    But my question is, which States did you find ‘automatic’ jus soli grants of citizenship benefits sans consideration of the parents, (fathers), citizenship status during the period between the Declaration up to the adoption of the Constitution…?

    I do not have the specific laws, what I do have is this reference:

    American Diplomatic Code: TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN Powers From 1778 To 1834. (published 1834)

    [A]nterior to 1789, aliens were naturalized according to the laws of the several states composing the Union. Under this system, the forms varied and were often very loose. The latter was especially the case when they were drawn up by justices of the peace, as sometimes happened.

    Since that epoch, the forms have been uniform, and are only permitted before such courts of record as are designated by the laws of the United States. But the designation includes not only courts of the United States, properly so called, but courts of the several states. Minor children also of naturalized persons, if the former be within the limits of the Union, become ipso facto, naturalized. It must be added, that, for several years no discrimination as to the birth place of aliens was recorded. If attempts were made to procure the lists required, a first objection might have been that the courts of the several states were not bound to obey, in this respect, a call from the general government. But granting that all obeyed, the lists would have exhibited nothing more than the names of British natural born subjects, naturalized during a period of nearly thirty year, They would not designate seamen, the law not having required a record of the occupation; nor would they embrace minor children, their names never having been directed to be registered. [end quote]

    http://books.google.com.ph/books?pg=RA1-PA320&dq=%22John+Adams%22+Vattel&id=_lTXAAAAMAAJ&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

  25. Thomas Morato Says:

    Ken… “I do not consider military children born overseas even on military hospitals as being NBC. I say NO to that. Let the mother have the baby born in America.”

    I’m sure your aware, but don’t forget that S1A2 also states “…been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Apparently 14 years was good enough for our founders to nullify ones possible allegiance to another country. So the mother of a US military family has to fly back to the US to have the child? Makes no sense when you consider the following situation…

    Two naturalized US citizens originally from Britain (pick any country) have a child in the US. There is no doubt to NBC status since both parents are US citizens and the child was born on US soil. Little NBC has a long form from a US hospital. Foreign born Britain parents then decide they want to take little NBC and move back to Britain where they live until the child is 21 years old. Little NBC (nor the parents) lost US citizenship and has political visions of becoming the president. He/she moves back to the US to start a political career. After turning 35 years old (having met the 14 year resident requirement) now makes a run for it.

    All other (political) qualifications being equal… If I had to choose between the child of two US citizens (one or both) serving in the military having a child born in a military hospital overseas or a child who (all agree) meets the NBC requirement that lived more of their life in a foreign country w/ foreign born parents… I’d rather pick the US citizen that was born of a military family.

    I respect the opinion that NBC should be a child of two US citizens born on US soil, but given the requirement that the candidate have only resided the last 14 years in the US (not their entire lives)… I do believe there is room in that opinion for the children born of US military families overseas.

    As stated before, for better or worse… I’d like the definition of NBC defined by the SCOTUS to resolve all opinions on the subject.

  26. The Language of Liberty 1660-1832, Political discourse and social dynamics in the Anglo-American world by J.C.D. Clark, Cambridge, Great Britain 1994

    page 50:

    [T]he classic formulation of the common-law doctrine of nationality was given in Calvin’s case (1608), [11] in which it was held by the English Court of Exchequer Chamber that English nationality was acquired, indelibly, by birth within the realm to parents who were themselves subjects [end quote]

    [11]“In the Savoy”, 1738; “State Trials, Vol 2”, London 1809 & [12]Clive Perry, “British Nationality”, London 1951

  27. The calvin case has been extremely & erroneously mis-interpreted. It was statutes of Queen Anne (7 Anne c. 21) that provided for perpetual allegiance and also took the classic common law doctrine (God-given Natural Law) of the patriarchial relation between the parent and the child and placed it with a sovereign ruler (king or queen) aka feudal doctrine. A close reading of the Calvin case clearly points out this change. Thus birthright citizenship regardless of parentage is not that of a natural form but of statute.

    However, Jay in the Chisholm case clarified that the classic formulation was re-established in the United States upon out independence:

    [I]t will be sufficient to observe, briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges ; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory, to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people ; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

    From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. [end quote]

    and to reiterate Jay, we move on to St George Tucker and his Appendix in St George Tucker’s Blackstone:

    [w]hat part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.

    And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation. [end quote]

    quotes from Tucker:

    [T]he exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law.
    [end quote]

    [B]lackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker.[end quote]

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2626433/posts?page=678#678

    for more reference to Tucker’s Blackstone, the readers can sift through my comments at freepers (must be a logged in member to search the posts): http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/pings?more=289996844

  28. Leo,

    Below are links for the 1904 Panamanian constitution and a reference to the 1928 legislative act which amended the Panamanian constitution. The 1904 constitution (article 6) stated that the children of foreigners born in Panamanian territory were Panamanian citizens at birth. The legislative act of 10/19/1928 amended article 6 of the Panamanian constitution, saying that the children of foreigners born in Panama would be considered citizens at the age of 21, should they exercise that option. McCain was born in 1936.

    McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance, but he was born with a human law option that does not exist for persons born by the laws of nature (born in the country to citizen parents). It can be legitimately argued that a natural born citizen is a person whose citizenship at birth is established by the laws of nature, and which is not encumbered by any human law (such as McCain’s option for guaranteed Panamanian citizenship at age 21, should he have chosen that option). I just think that the Supreme Court would have overlooked that option in light of McCain not knowing of the option and his evident allegiance to the country.

    I agree that McCain should have at least asked for a declaratory judgment from the DC District Court (or the Supreme Court) with regard to his eligibility. Such action would have exposed Obama’s clear ineligibility.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=0VWXmxCcnz0C&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=%22constitution+of+panama%22+text&source=bl&ots=azRiBmBfdx&sig=pPPVXdUolqVfKxxZNawNZ-9Ud-A&hl=en&ei=v2HeS6_DMIeU8QTI1JSiBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBoQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22constitution%20of%20panama%22%20text&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=oPOKzH36UdEC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=panamanian+constitution+%22article+6%22&source=bl&ots=DlEVgF8qqH&sig=K0e4AuVSO1nI5i2MMEkc-vIOPaM&hl=en&ei=2fpdTbHMCMT6lwf9yOmEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=panamanian%20constitution%20%22article%206%22&f=false

  29. DixHistory Says:

    The problem as I see it. Not what a NBC is but that no one who has the power and or authority to answer that question is willing to take action in regards to that matter.

    In a lawful country the courts should be eager to answer that question based on the facts. Not on popular opinion, Anew World Order or the fear of not being political correct.

  30. Couriouser Says:

    Although we should continue to diligently pursue the true constitutional meaning of nbC in order to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution, I suspect BHO will claim an unknown or different father to meet state eligibility requirements (if passed) for Election 2012.

    Didn’t Hawaii admit in your requests for records that a document had been added to BHO’s file? Perhaps this document was his grandmother’s deathbed confession claiming a different father.

    Terrific lawyering, Leo.

    ed. At first, I thought this was a nutty argument. Most readers know that I denied this was a possibility. But lately, I have been thinking the whole birth certificate fiasco might be a genius ploy started as protection for Obama if the dual citizen issue were to ever rear its head and work its way to SCOTUS… not showing his long form etc. gives him the option of changing his father if he should need to. Twilight Zone material, sure… impossible to imagine – not really. Most opponents of Obama and his forces do not give their intelligence enough respect. I do. – Leo

  31. Bill Cutting Says:

    Interesting that the citizenship of an Indian child born on US soil depended on the citizenship of the parents.

    5. Minor Children.—The Solicitor of the Interior Department has held that where Indian parents became citizens upon allotment, their minor children became citizens with them, and that children born subsequent thereto were born to citizenship.

    6. Citizenship by Birth.—(a) An Indian child born in the United States of citizen Indian parents is born to citizenship. (b) Legitimate children born of an Indian woman and a white citizen father are born to citizenship.

    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/vol4/html_files/v4p1165.html

  32. Leo,
    Your dogged pursuit of this matter is the one thing that keeps me from giving up on our republic entirely. My question for you is, what can an ordinary citizen do to force the “powers that be” to address our concerns? I have written several times on this subject to my Rep., Scott Garrett, with hopes that he, as a putative conservative Republican, would be brave enough to act. His first response was a typical canned response that “we all know” that Obama was born in Hawai’i. When I pointed out that Obama could have been born under the Capitol Rotunda with the entire Supreme Court in attendance and STILL not qualify as natural born, the response was silence.
    I later wrote to Mr. Garrett asking him to take action on the gross injustice inflicted on LTC Terry Lakin. I am sure that the fact that I concluded my letter with a warning that, if I received another canned response, I would post my letter together with his response on Free Republic, explains why I received no response whatsoever.
    Is there ANY action that I, or others, can take to force the issue? I am willing to take any action, including acts of civil disobedience in conjunction with others that would result in my imprisonment if it would have any effect.
    We must get this usurper out of the White House and into Federal prison where he belongs!

    ed. I regret to predict that Obama will not be challenged by any states… any courts or any federal legislators… ever. Your representatives do not have the courage of their convictions and most of them have no convictions at all. They are good little doggies who do what they are told and will never rock the boat, pack animals all sucking from the same teet. If he leaves the White House after another four years, I’ll be relieved. I think this republic is essentially going to end within the next ten years and will only remain as in name and not in substance after that. I do not believe anything that you can do as a citizen will make even the slightest bit of difference. Still, I encourage you to do all you can and what that is is up to you. I think the nation has been sold out to foreign powers, many of whom have representation as stockholders in the Federal Reserve Bank and that America is not run by Americans except other than in the most surface of appearances.- leo

  33. Philip N. Says:

    Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

    3. Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:

    “[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. . . .”

    This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . .”

    Leo,

    I’m having a hard time understanding this, a little help would be appreciated.

    Thanks in advance,

    Philip N.

  34. jbeck57143 Says:

    I have a question about the current Supreme Court possibly ruling on this issue: Since the last two Supreme Court Justices were nominated by someone who had no authority to nominate them, does that invalidate any of the current Supreme Court’s rulings? Does it mean they can’t rule on anything until these two justices are removed?

  35. evergreen Says:

    Before Bingham’s 14th was added in 1868, in 1866 he emphasized in Congress the 2 US citizen parents/born on US soil definition of NBC, that the 14th’s “born in USA subject to jurisdiction” was meant to grant citizenship to former slaves, and did not alter the definition of NBC. All 2nd generation or better from former slaves could also run for president. Then in 1874 Minor held that no 14th-er is ever a NBC. They were struggling to both properly give citizenship to former slaves “born subject to jurisdiction” but not allow someone just born in the USA without citizen parents to become a citizen, and certainly not a natural born Citizen.

    The Constitution does define NBC.
    1. Congress/Senate has to be age 25 and 7/9 years a “Citizen” but POTUS has to be age 35, a NBC and 14 years a “Resident”.
    2. Article II differentiates “Citizen” from “Natural Born Citizen” via the grandfather clause.

    So the Constitution says that Citizen is not NBC, and that NBC is not “Citizen” for the purposes of the Constitution. Otherwise it would have said age 35, NBC and 14 years a Citizen. The Constitution makes clear you can’t be both. You can’t start out a Citizen then become a NBC.

    Yes there’s a generic umbrella meaning to citizen as belonging to a nation but the Constitution makes it clear that insofar as its purpose the two terms are distinct. Citizen is not NBC and vice versa.

    Around the 1776-1787 era, there were no oath-naturalized Citizens until well after the ratification, and so a Citizen was someone made so by the Declaration of Independence, a former resident who supported the revolution who willingly became a citizen. Well after the ratification, oath naturalization laws were implemented for foreigners and others.

    That the term Citizen before ratification could only mean a naturalized citizen by way of the Declaration of Independence, rules out any argument that Citizen only means (in the Constitution) oath-naturalized only. It means a person becomes a citizen by man-made rules. That’s it.

    And since a natural born Citizen is what a Citizen is NOT…what a Citizen is NOT is “made by nature”. The Boston Globe article concurs. So in a way, Citizen is synthesized, natural born Citizen is organic — the Berkenstockers will like that analogy.

    The only omitted permutation of birthplace and parentage and terminology from the 14th and all laws of naturalization is that for the “organic citizen”, i.e. 2 US citizen parents, born on US soil=NBC.

    A natural born citizen, is what a citizen is not!

  36. evergreen Says:

    Also, there is another level of betrayal insofar as the state eligibility laws:

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/is-obama-bribing-the-states-on-eligibility/

    Apparently President Jarrett has been busy bribing states out of implementing any laws until after Obama’s 2nd term, and some of the states that proposed laws already had them on their books in 2008 and still do, but did not and refuse to implement them.

    Arizona has ARS 16-311 requiring facts of eligibility, instead they allowed Obama to self-attest! And they told me on the phone they don’t care if a foreigner gets on their ballot, they’re not checking for documents in 2012. They are in open violation of their own laws and aggressive about it too. So much for Brewer being GOP.

    Georgia has OCGA 21-2-5 requiring presidents show proof of eligibility for the position prior to balloting. So then they proposed (Hatfield) another eligibility law, got everone excited, Jarrett probably did a nice backroom hundred mill bribe and voila, it’s not to be implemented until 2015 (again, ignoring the existing law on their books).

    And Maryland has 5-201.

    The question really is; HOW CAN THESE STATES BE FORCED TO IMPLEMENT THEIR EXISTING ELIGIBILITY LAWS

    and stop misdirecting us with bullshit bills they are merely profiting from and never had any intention of enacting?

  37. Republican landmarks: The views and opinions of American statesmen on foreign immigration By John Philip Sanderson 1856

    http://books.google.com/books?id=lUsNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA122&dq=%22naturalization%22+%2B+%221790%22&hl=en&ei=Lqh_Tf2FI8zdgQez85WUCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22children%22&f=false

    lots of census stats from the founding to the mid 1800’s, lots of references to children of aliens and a few pertaining to children of aliens born in America. Nothing really heavey hitting, but really good historical testimony to the hard hitting references we already have

  38. evergreen Says:

    I think in 2010 that US code 1401 was changed, because US Code 1401(b) used to say one native citizen parent, now it says an aboriginal or member of tribe.

  39. evergreen Says:

    http://boingboing.net/2010/07/03/declaration-of-indep.html

    Have you ever seen this? Thomas Jefferson changed the term “subjects” to “citizens” in the draft of the Declaration of Independence?

  40. The Governmental Instructor: or, A Brief and Comprehensive View of the Governmnet of the United States By J. B. Shurtleff 1847

    pg 74-75:

    NATURALIZATION LAWS.

    We have seen that the constitution of the United States was adopted by the people of the several states. All who voted, or who had a right to vote at that time were parties to the contract, and of course were entitled to the right of citizenship under the new government. This right of citizenship is, in a measure, a hereditary right which descends, so that all people born in the United States, of parents who were citizens, are entitled to the rights of citizenship also.

    But persons coming from foreign countries are not entitled to the right of citizenship unless the United States choose to confer it upon them.

    The process by which this right is conferred, is called naturalization. And the laws which prescribe this process are called naturalization laws.

    What further rights has congress under this power?
    What is said of the Indian tribes?
    By whom was the constitution of the United States adopted ?
    Who were entitled to citizenship ?
    Are the children of citizens entitled to citizenship ?
    Are foreigners entitled to the rights of citizenship in the United
    States?

    http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA74&dq=%22naturalization%22+%2B+%221790%22&ei=SMR_TcXBFcT2gAfAkc2WCA&ct=result&id=bIoXAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22naturalization%22%20%2B%20%221790%22&f=false

    Am I wrong in concluding through a reading of this section of the book that since the 1st naturalization act, children of aliens regardless of birth location, did not become US citizens until the parents became citizens through the naturalization process unless other provisions were made via statute by the US Congress? If so, those claiming birth via the 14th, “jus soli” regardless of “jus sanguinis”, would all be deemed naturalized at birth wouldn’t they?

    [Vattel Bk 1, Chap 19, Sec. 214: Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.]

  41. Would a child born to two 3rd generation American citizens who have lived their entire lives at 5th and Niagra Street, Niagra Falls, NY be a natural born citizen if he was born at the nearest hospital two miles from home at the Niagra Health System Greater Niagra General Site on the Ontario side of the border, coming home within 24 hours of birth, never to step foot in Canada again?

    http://tinyurl.com/natbornniagra

    ed. no.

  42. “Earlier this month, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff his views on the matter during a Judiciary Committee hearing.

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff said.

    Leahy concurred.”

    From:

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/legislation-int.html

  43. You probably have this interesting document. But I found myself re-reading it.

    http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf

    It champions ideas contrary to the point that jus sanguinis is a key element of the ‘natural born’ Article II requirement. However I did find some interesting and, what I view as accurate, observations. The discussion points also look at the concept of being able to decompose ‘natural born Citizen’ into ‘natural Citizen and born Citizen’. A concept I favor since ‘natural born Citizen’ is not a legally defined term and not a proper Noun as defined in the English language. It is a phrase composed of 2 adjectives and a proper noun (Citizen) but it is not its own proper noun ‘term’.

    Interesting points (IMHO):

    1. born = ‘from birth':

    pdf page 9 –

    “Without the modifier “natural,” the essence of the text is apparent: The President need not be native born, but must be a citizen from birth.”

    2. It does directly attack (apparently correctly) the ‘there are only 2 citizenships types’ myth propagated by Obots:

    On pdf page 13, Section III.

    “…But this dichotomy is not a proper basis for concluding, as the circuit court in Zimmer v. Acheson'” did, for example, that the only two classes or citizens are native born and naturalized, where “naturalized” is limited to citizens who do not acquire their citizenship at birth,” The misconception that naturalization only refers to the acquisition of citizenship after birth remains a potential stumbling block for the courts.”

    Obots often say its either nbC or naturalized and those are your only choices. This directly attacks that concept but admits it is a stumbling block of understanding.

    3. Quoting the Naturalization Act of 1790

    “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, … shall be considered as natural born citizens . …”

    Some have said this original clause shows that the ONLY nbC criteria was that of jus sanguinis and that jus soli was not a factor. However, it must be pointed that the phrase is that of a comparative phrase and not an equivocating phrase. Note the use of the word ‘as’. This passage is specifically indicating the overseas children are NOT Article II nbC but (by law!) will be treated AS nbC. This is why it is part of the original NATURALIZATION law. I feel this also supports the concept that the founders did view that were two ‘types’ or ‘trees’ of citizenship. But, in contrast to what is in #2 above, these two type were a) ‘natural’ (and thus ‘natural born’ and b) ‘positive’ (man made). Using the concepts of
    natural and positive law. Where natural law is superior to positive law.

    I know lawyers hate the concept of ‘natural law’ since they can not control it (or undermine it).

    I do like the following statement from pdf page 16:

    “If the natural born requirement seems unclear, perhaps we have been asking the wrong questions.”

    But I do not like their own response 2 pages later:

    “Looking to contemporary law rather than early American or British law makes sense especially where, as in this case, the underlying assumptions about which groups are entitled to rights under the law have
    changed significantly.”

    And then they go way off the reservation in the final Conclusion section:

    “As historical and textual analysis has shown, a citizen may be both “naturalized” and “natural born.””

    Both ‘naturalized’ and ‘natural born’?

  44. H/T from bushpilot1 at freepers:

    Cases of contested elections in Congress: from the year 1789 to 1834, inclusive By United States. Congress. House. Committee on Elections

    http://books.google.com/books?id=bQ8EfoaTBLsC&pg=PA451&dq=Constitution+Vattel&hl=en&ei=h12ATb7rEsSrcYealesG&sa=X&oi=b#v=onepage&q=Constitution%20Vattel&f=false

    US Congress using Law of Nations in decscribing qualifications for US elected offices of Reps, Senators & President

    see Fuller beginning page 450

    ed. that is truly a great find. – leo

  45. From the same book: Cases of contested elections in Congress: from the year 1789 to 1834, inclusive By United States. Congress. House. Committee on Elections

    excerpt from page 863 respecting qualifications of elected officials required by the laws of the US Constitution:

    “that the common law of England was entirely inapplicable to the subject under consideration”

  46. Pat Goltz Says:

    I agree with you about just about everything you said. However, I do not agree with you about McCain. He was born to two citizen parents, and it’s my understanding he was born in a military hospital. Even if he was born in another hospital, having two citizen parents should be enough to establish that he has single loyalty. If this isn’t sufficient, consider how loyal he was to the United States while undergoing torture on a regular basis for years in a Vietnamese POW camp. I don’t think you can get much more loyal than that. Congress considered the question and ruled he is eligible. In light of all these facts, how can you assert that he was putting self interest ahead of the well being of this country? It doesn’t make sense to me. Don’t snipe at the gnats and ignore the picture. The Founders wanted undivided loyalty. It can usually be established by birth, but even people who are natural-born can become disloyal. Certainly, showing his loyalty as he has should put that question to rest. Good luck in all your endeavors to reveal the truth about Obama.

    ed. there is no evidence McCain was born in a military hospital. doesn’t matter if he was though. being born in a military hospital does not give one citizenship. that has never been the law. McCain is a citizen by statute. that is a fact. if he was nbc, no statute would be necessary. While McCain was certainly a war hero, and we give him the utmost respect for that, it does not erase the fact that he put this nation at risk by running while he knew damn well that his eligibility was in a grey area… by doing so he could not challenge Obama on this point. Therefore, he injured this nation, and such injury is probably not going to ever heal. – leo

  47. Pat Goltz Says:

    One other point. I urge you NOT to seek an interview with Alex Jones. He is a nutcase, often prints stuff on his sites that is demonstrably false, knows virtually nothing about the law, and being on his show would seriously hurt your credibility.

    ed. I have learned much from Alex Jones. I do not agree with everything he says… but he was one of the first voices to speak out about the dangers this country faces from beyond our shores and the infiltration going on now. He has very smart guests who do excellent research. He also has some people on with stories I do not believe. I have a mind. I use it. I have been disappointed with him for not covering the dual nationality issue. I would like to reach his audience which is larger than you may think. I do not worry about credibility. My research stands on its own and is verifiable on its own with no regard to my credibility. The law is… whether I say it or not, whether I am “credible” or not… the law is there for all to see. I am not necessary. The law is credible, makes no difference to me whether I am credible or not. I say what I have to say and people can do what they like with it. The second I hit “send” on my reports, Im usually off to play poker. I review comments when I come back from the tables…screw credibility. I dont give a crap. being credible is the problem with our entire news cycle. The truth doesn’t matter, only whether the person feeding it to you is… think about it. – leo

  48. Pat Goltz Says:

    As for McCain’s being willing to run, don’t try to condemn him for not knowing at the time what many of us learned over time since the election, yourself included. In fact, I didn’t even know that Obama wasn’t constitutionally eligible until after the election, though the issue had been raised beforehand, and I had just barely learned about it. McCain certainly was not a Panamanian citizen at birth. There is no question in my mind that his loyalty has been undivided in any way, his entire life. It would be ironic if military parents couldn’t confer natural-born citizenship on their children, considering that they were willing to put their very lives on the line for the safety of this nation. Such a conclusion would be the height of injustice. Military personnel go where they are told to go. I think you should let this issue go. It doesn’t even matter. McCain didn’t get elected, and Obama “did”. The result is that McCain’s citizenship status is irrelevant, and I fail to see how sniping at sentiments he has never expressed serves any purpose. We don’t KNOW that McCain wouldn’t have said something had he known what we do now.

    ed. disagree in the extreme. – leo

  49. Philip N. Says:

    Leo,

    I asked your opinion on a certain Supreme Court case but have not even seen my post added to the comments. – ?

  50. Welcome back, Leo. I still consider your name to rank with the founders: Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Donofrio, …

    ed. Nope, not even close. – leo

    For the slight amusement of your readers, I offer a couple of tidbits.

    Please recall the letter from John Jay to George Washington.
    Here is the timeline.
    The first draft of the Constitution only required citizenship to be President.
    John Jay wrote to Washington:
    Quote: Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. Unquote (John Jay underlined ‘born’ in his handwritten letter.)
    The final draft (only 2-3 weeks later) included the NBC requirement, instead of just citizen.

    Conclusion: The reason, the whole reason and nothing but the reason the founders included the NBC requirement was to prevent BHO from becoming President!!!
    Not BHO by name, but by status: dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, subject to claims by a foreign power.

    Once again, just to keep things spicy, one might ask why having “dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, subject to claims by a foreign power” is important.

    From a recent article by Thomas Sowell, we find this tidbit:
    Quote: The British newspaper the Telegraph has reported that part of the price which President Obama paid to get Russia to sign the START treaty limiting nuclear arms, was revealing to the Russians the hitherto secret size of the British nuclear arsenal. This information came from the latest WikiLeaks documents. Unquote
    Linked here: ttp://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259206/undermining-allies-thomas-sowell

    Obama, acting as President of the US, released “British State Secrets” to the Russians!! At best, you could claim that he was acting within his authority as President. (Certainly, foreign policy is within the constitutional powers of the President.) At worst, you could claim that as a US Citizen, he committed espionage against an ally, Britain.

    However, what if he were a British citizen and released British State Secrets?? Well, that would not be “foreign policy” nor “espionage”, that would be TREASON.

    ed. very good point. – leo

    Oh , wait a minute. BHO IS (!!!!!) a British citizen.

    Dual citizenship, dual allegiance, divided loyalty, subject to claims by foreign powers.
    All of those things are still true of BHO.
    Under Kenyan constitution, BHO had to take affirmative action upon becoming adult to keep Kenyan citizenship.
    BHO did not do that. Therefore, his Kenyan citizenship has expired.
    Under British law, BHO is still a British citizen unless he took specific action to revoke his British citizenship.
    It is not known that he has done that.
    Therefore, it must be assumed that he has not revoked his British citizenship.
    It must be assumed that BHO still has dual US & British citizenships.

    Enter the Master Nationality Rule (MNR), in international law.
    In layman’s terms, the MNR states that a dual citizen person is considered to be a 100% citizen when physically within either of the dual citizenship countries.
    What it means, is that whenever BHO is within the US, then he is considered to be 100% US and Britain may lay no official claims upon him.
    However, whenever BHO is within Great Britain, then he is considered to be 100% British and the US may not claim any immunities of US citizenship.

    What this means is that when BHO takes his next trip to Great Britain,
    then the British may arrest him for treason, try him, convict him and take him out back and hang him!!
    The US government could file a protest, but the British would not have to listen.
    He is treated as though he is 100% British while he is in Britain.

    Now, I do not believe that the British would actually do that, they are much too polite.
    However, I certainly would not put that past the Russians, the Iranians, the Libyans, etc., etc., etc.

    It certainly illustrates why being “subject to claims by a foreign power” is important.
    And, why the founding fathers wanted to avoid such possibility.
    And, why they put NBC into the final draft of the Constitution as a requirement for the Presidency.

  51. Robert Laity Says:

    McCain is also NOT a Natural-Born American. Again,to BE an NBC is to have been born IN the US of parents who are BOTH American.

    US Jus Soli and 100% US Jus Sanguinis must BOTH be met.

    McCain is complicit with Obama. It has been reported that McCain TOOK a DIVE in 2008. Both McCain and Palin purposely let Obama run for POTUS unabated,as did Hillary Clinton. They are all in the same cabal

  52. Mike’s comment on the Yale Law Journal Article

    If a natural born citizen could be “both ‘naturalized’ and ‘natural born’” then Chester Arthur would have qualified without a doubt and so would Jindal and Rubio for a future presidential run. Wouldn’t Spiro T. Agnew been qualified as born in the US to parents who naturalized?

    The “Constitutional Scholar” Mark Levin was favorably expounding on the presidential candidacy of either Jindal or Rubio last night. Surely Levin knows the controversy about the definition of NBC although I am not aware of any public comments he has made on the issue.

    More evidence of a Republican plan to broaden the potential field of candidates? Or the currently accepted (not historical) view of what an NBC is?

    ed. As far as I can tell (dont have all the birth record facts for these two in my possession)…neither Jindal nor Rubio is eligible. But if Obama is eligible then these two will be eligible. But none of them truly are eligible. Their eligibility will come from precedent set by Obama. But they aren’t nbc and they ought to step forward and say that they are not. They ought to take the high road of a statesman and call Obama out for being ineligible, but neither will do that for this country. I dont think either has the stuff to step forward and say, “You know, I’d love to be President and lead this nation but it’s not about what I want, it’s about national security precedent and therefore I am not eligible and neither is Obama.” That would take a true stateman and there is not a single one in our entire Government. Not one.-leo

  53. witch_wyzwurd Says:

    @ Pat Goltz

    Hi Pat. My reply to you is in a respectable manner.

    The issue of Presidential eligibility is not based on feelings, it’s based on words of Law. Sure, McCain’s feeling might be hurt, along with any other people in a position of birth like his, but Law hurts many people’s feelings.

    Being President of the United States is not some spelling bee competition where little Johnny gets disqualified because he had to leave and go to the bathroom during his turn. In this case, little Johnny might cry and his parents might get upset because Johnny had dreams of winning, and his parents could probably drum up enough support to change the spelling bee rules for next year. I’m sure if enough parents got together, they could get the spelling bee competition hosts to add a bathroom break.

    But being President carries way to many responsibilities to be throwing in potty breaks here and there just to make the candidates happy. I’m sure if these special circumstances were allowed willy-nilly then 2 or 3 elections from now someone would be chanting how unfair it is that an illegal alien born in our country wasn’t allowed to become President.

    Yes. America is the Melting Pot, but that does not mean that we need to boil away the glue holding it together.

    Let me ask you this: If two warring street gangs had one leader each, but one of the leaders fell sick and died, do you think the gang searching for a new leader would allow someone born on their enemy’s turf to become the new leader? Yah Pat, that’s right, the U.S. military and political parties are gangs, and the President is their leader.

  54. I find this discussion of the finer points of NBC versus Citizen fascinating, but it is merely of theoretical interest when all available evidence is that the Usurper is not only NOT a citizen of any sort – he is most likely what is euphemistically described as an “undocumented worker.”

    For some time it has been possible to confirm, via the website for the Selective Service (http://www.sss.gov) and the website for Social Security (http://www.ssa.gov) the he uses an Social Security Number that was issued in Connecticut – a state in which he has neither ever resided nor worked. Recently, an individual with access to the SSA’s E-verify system used it to check his number against SSA records — the response received was “Invalid – Never issued.” As far as I know, there is only one type of individual that uses an invalid SSN!

  55. Pat Goltz Says:

    Leo, based on your earlier responses to my comments:

    1. McCain made a good faith effort to obtain a ruling on whether he was a NBC. There have been hints in some court rulings that only Congress has standing to challenge NBC in the case of a presidential candidate. Nobody *knows* that McCain was in collusion with Obama, and I refuse to speculate when it would involve mind-reading. And I fail to see how beating a dead horse will get us anywhere. I don’t know about you, but quite frankly, I think we would have been far better off if McCain had become president, and I can see why he would feel that challenging the citizenship of his opponent would be detrimental to his chances of winning the election. I don’t entirely agree with how he campaigned, but despite that, I think trashing him at this point serves no purpose.

    2. Your appearance on Alex Jones’ show is still not acceptable. He has lied numerous times (I have caught him), and he has misrepresented many facts. He doesn’t understand the law (as an attorney, you should be able to check this out). For example, he once tried to apply RICO to the act of Texas requiring gun shows to check ID before selling guns to individuals, to stop guns being sold for export to Mexico. First, Mexican citizens don’t have 2nd Amendment rights. Second, since Texas (the enterprise) couldn’t profit from asking that IDs be checked, RICO doesn’t apply. That didn’t stop Jones. You may be able to discern between his lies, errors, and truth, but his listeners, by and large, cannot. Your presence on his show would lend *him* legitimacy, and perpetuate his hold on the audience. He needs to fade away into obscurity. I am sorry, but I mistrust anyone who would trust Alex Jones. And in associating with him, well, you have heard, Birds of a feather flock together, and You are judged by the company you keep. I had been supporting you, thinking you might just win this case for us, but now I no longer think you have the discernment to know who to stay away from. Thanks to Joseph Farah, you don’t need Jones’ show to publicize the issue or even to promote your reasoning. Bottom line: Alex Jones is a *major* reason why we got Obama, because he helped trash Bush. He even blamed Bush for 9/11, which is a *total* crock. The physical evidence shows there was no planned demolition. That didn’t stop Jones. Whatever you think of Bush’s policies (there were several that stank to high heaven as far as I am concerned), he didn’t deserve the trashing he has gotten. Those of us who are constitutionalists and care about the well being of our country need to stop attacking *each other*. There is room for some disagreement among us, but at all times, our *enemy* is the “progressive liberal socialists”, *not each other*.

    3. When a case is taken to the Supreme Court, it is so very common for the petitioners to ask the wrong question(s) and get the right answer to the wrong question. For this reason, a discerning person will make sure to ask the right question. Whether or not a person is born on American soil is not necessary to oust Obama. He had a British citizen for a father. He’s not NBC. Take just *that* question to the Supreme Court and win on *that* one, and Obama and all his acts are gone. And that’s what matters. We want him gone. He clearly hates this country and has done everything in his power to destroy us.

    ed. Don’t tell me what is acceptable for me. I would go on the Alex Jones show. – leo

  56. The “natural born” argument holds no water. Historically, Obama is the SEVENTH U.S. President with a foreign-born parent.

    Andrew Jackson was the child of two Irish immigrants. Thomas Jefferson’s mother was born in England. James Buchanan and Chester Arthur both had Irish fathers. Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover had mothers from England and Canada, respectively.

    Obama’s case is not a new phenomenon. This rationale for illegitimacy is groundless.

    ed. Please try to be educated about the facts of what I publish here. I have never stated that it matters where the President’s parents are from. Below is the same response I laid out for your similar question in another post.

    you are reading propaganda. Chester Arthur lied to protect his eligibility and it wasn’t discovered until 2008 – by this blog – that his father was not naturalized until 14 years after he was born. Other than Arthur, every other President was either eligible due to the Grandfather clause of A2 S1, like Jefferson ….or, like Hoover, his parents were US citizens when he was born. Those are facts. It doesn’t matter where your parents are from… it only matters whether they were US citizens when you were born. People are trying to spin your mind into thinking our position is concerned with the issue of where the parents are “from”. FALSE – if the parents were US citizens when the child was born, the child is eligible for POTUS. Chester Arthur was a liar and he actively concealed his heritage through lies issued to various newspapers and such lies threw the trail off of his ineligibility. – leo

  57. Pat Goltz Says:

    @ witch_wyzwurd
    You have me puzzled. I don’t think I said a word about feelings. As for the military and the political parties being gangs, I beg your pardon! Gangs are for doing harm. Our nation is a legitimate nation. End of argument.

    @ leo
    You are obviously going to do whatever you want. But I no longer have the respect for you I once did. If anybody is at all familiar with Alex Jones, there is a good chance they will agree. Not everyone will, of course. But we don’t need someone who engages in lies and half truths, whose word cannot be trusted. He becomes a pawn for the enemy. It’s people like him, trashing Bush (defamation is NOT OK, even if public officials cannot sue), that gave us Obama. I want no part of him. Keep your eye on him. If you are half as versed in the law as any attorney ought to be, sooner or later you will see through him. Well, I shouldn’t say that. I don’t know what you will do. But if you don’t, it will just be another disappointment for me. Believe me, I want *someone* to give Obama the KO. If you can do it, great. But I would be hard put to stomach anyone who thinks associating with Alex Jones is acceptable, and as a general rule, I don’t.

    ed. Im no fan of Bush either… – leo

  58. Pat Goltz Says:

    Leo, at least you are civil in your opinion about Bush. Bush did plenty that I disagree with. He also did some things very right. What I can’t stand is when someone accuses Bush of something he didn’t do, which is what Alex Jones did. He accused him of causing 9/11. That’s unacceptable. I would like to let you concentrate on getting rid of Obama. Bush was a piker by comparison no matter how you slice it.

    ed. I just don’t share your views. Let’s leave it at that. – Leo

  59. @ KJ

    Spiro Agnew’s father was in the US 20 years before Spiro was born, and actually worked for the Democratic Party. Unable to verify absolutely, but pretty certain that he was naturalized. Rubio’s parents were in the US 12 years before Marco was born, and judging by the preferential status Cubans are given in naturalization, it is probable that they were also naturalized before Marco’s birth.
    Jindal in no way can be considered a nbc, and like Leo said is no statesman either.
    My question for Leo, if he has the time to answer, is if Obama stays in office full term, does it necessarily set a precedent, when numerous lawsuits saying he wasn’t, or asking for verification were turned away, and not heard on the merits?

    ed. Of course it sets a precedent… of some kind. A precedent that the Constitution does not matter. As for Rubio, if his parents were naturalized before his birth then he is nbc.- leo

  60. Becky Subrahmanyam Says:

    Leo,

    I have been following you efforts to defend the Constitution for a long time and I appreciate your love of truth and the law as well as your tireless and thorough research and uncompromising positions on the Natural Born Citizen issue. I am very disappointed that the “powers that be” seem unconcerned about this important issue, and that Jindal and Rubio seem to have decided they are eligible to run for president if they choose. My husband is from India and our son was born before my husband was a citizen (I was born in Texas). My son is not interested in any political office, but if he was, I could never support his running for president out of respect for the Constitution.

    I am, however, a Bible believing Christian, and I have an even deeper respect for the Bible as the ultimate book of truth. I wonder if you did believe that the Bible was inspired whether you would feel about it the way you feel about the Constitution. I would just like to recommend a couple of resources concerning the inspiration of the Bible that you might find interesting. One is a book by Josh McDowell called “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” The other is a video available at youtube from a series called “Learn the Bible in 24 hours. These lectures are by Chuck Missler, a man that had a lengthy career in the military and Information Technology, among other things. He, like you, really does his research. Here is the link to Session 13, which is about the trustworthiness of the Bible:

    Even if you disagree with him, I think you will find Chuck Missler very interesting.

    I know at the moment that you cannot see any point in continuing the Natural Born Citizen information crusade, but you are the expert and the “go to guy.” I know if you see any hope or any new information, you will jump back in just like you did this time. Throughout your last silence, I checked your blog everyday, and I will continue to do so. If you take the blog down, I will search the web for your remarks and your quotes by others. Thank you for all of your time and effort.

    Sincerely,

    Becky

    ed. Thank you Becky. I read the Bible, and I feel that God will explain it to me and that he always leads me to truth. I am not happy with traditional interpretations in many areas of Biblical study. And I don’t believe every word in written by God since men have had their paws involved. I do not believe in any church. I was born and raised a Catholic but that organization lost my respect ages ago. I am not Catholic anymore. My biggest issue is that the Paraclete passages, as interpreted by traditional churches, appear false in light of what Jesus actually said. I also do not believe that Jesus was God, only that he was the Messiah of God. Jesus prayed to God and I do not believe he was praying to himself. The Paraclete is a person who Jesus said would come after he left. That person is supposed to be a male and he is supposed to be on the Earth. The ethereal concept of the Paraclete as a “Holy Spirit” does not make sense to me in light of what Jesus wrote. Furthermore, the whole concept of a succession of Popes does not seem to relate to any law laid down by Jesus. He may have built his Church upon Peter but I dont see anything to suggest that Peter was infallible and that he could pass some leadership down to anybody else. I believe in the words of Jesus and that they have been interpreted wrongly in many places. – Leo

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: