Search This Blog

Monday, April 20, 2015

Chester Arthur vs Barack Obama

The is the content of a note I sent a co-worker explaining why Bobby Jindal (*) is not Constitutionally qualified to occupy the office of US President --
Jindal isn’t a natural born US citizen for the same reason that Obama isn’t - at the time he was born, his parents were not US citizens.

In the case of Obama, what is commonly accepted (*) as the truth about his birth almost mirrors what the Democrats alleged about Chester Arthur when they wanted to disqualify him from being Vice-President (and President).
* Both Arthur and Obama were the sons of men who were originally subjects of the British Crown;
* Both Arthur and Obama were the sons of women who were (natural born) US citizens, each from a long line of citizens;
* Both Arthur and Obama were alleged to have been born outside the territory of the US - not that this matters to the issue of being a natural born citizen:
- In the case of Arthur, it was his political enemies who alleged it;
- In the case of Obama, it was he himself, and his wife, who have alleged it … when it served his purpose;
* A major difference:
- Obama’s father never was a US citizen, therefore, Obama is not, and never can be, a natural born US citizen;
- Arthur’s was a naturalized US citizen - the point of dispute, the point on which the Democrat’s case to disqualify Arthur hinged, was whether Chester Arthur’s father was naturalized before or after Chester’s birth:
. that is, if, as the Democrats alleged, Arthur’s father was naturalized after his birth, then Arthur was not a natural born US citizen, and thus was Constitutionally ineligible to be either Vice-President or President;
. on the other hand, if, as Arthur alleged, his father was naturalized before his birth, then Arthur was indeed a natural born US citizen, and thus was Constitutionally eligible to be both Vice-President and President;
(*) Since he refuses to make the actual records available, no one outside a small circle even knows where he was born … and *where* never was the issue, anyway.

(*) and Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz ... and Barack Obama

25 comments:

B. Prokop said...

"Both Arthur and Obama were alleged to have been born outside the territory of the US"

Huh? Obama was born in Hawaii. And I'm pretty sure it was already a state by the time he was born. (too lazy to look up the year right now) Are you saying Hawaii's not part of the US?

smrstrauss said...

EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies.



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


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

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)


More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

THAT makes Jindal and Rubio and, yes, Obama, all Natural Born Citizens (which, duh, was the reason that the chief justice of the USA swore Obama in several times after each election). But since Cruz was born in Canada, the matter is not so clear for him, as the Heritage Foundation book states.

B. Prokop said...

When I was in Turkey in the mid-1990s, working for the Turkish Air Force on assignment from our Department of Defense, I learned in conversations with several Turkish officers that they had an (extremely unofficial) policy of sending Air Force officers whose wives were pregnant to classes in the United States, so their children would be born here, and therefore be US Citizens.

The reason given for this was a great fear within the (very Western oriented) Air Force that Turkey might be taken over by Islamic extremists, and they wanted an "escape hatch" to safety in the US in the event that happened. They spoke quite openly of this to me.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "escape hatch."

That does not change the legal definition of Natural Born Citizen in the slightest.

B. Prokop said...

"That does not change..."

I know, I was just riffing off the conversation. The subject under discussion brought that incident back to memory (after 20 years).

Ilíon said...

B.Prokop: "Huh? Obama was born in Hawaii. ... Are you saying Hawaii's not part of the US?"

You don't know that he was born in Hawaii, any more than I do. He currently claims to have been born in Hawaii. He has previously claimed to have been born in Kenya. You choose to believe his one claim while ignoring his contradictory prior claim.

AND, as I keep poiniting out -- including (once again) in the very OP -- *where* a person is born has nothing to do with whether he is a natural born US citizen. A person is a natural born US citizen if, and only if, his parents (*) are citizens, whether naturalized or natural born, at the time of his birth.

I have previously explained this very next example to you -- George Washington was born in America, but he was not a natural born US citizen -- which is why the Constitutional provision explicitly says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ..." Thus -- deliberately -- Alexander Hamilton, who was born on the Carribean island of Nevis, which is not and never was the territory of the US, was eligible to be US President, but Barack Obama (and Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio) is not.

It becomes tedious to keep pointing out the very same thing(s) to you.


(*) In truth, I don't think the law was ever modified from the original, under which is it is one's father from whom one inherits natural born citizenship or does not.

Ilíon said...

some guy who have never posted on this blog before and who suddenly shows up to post a copy-and-pasted wall-of-words: "EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of invading enemy armies."

This assertion isn't true.

Furthermore, Gentle Reader, the whole issue of "birthright citizenship" (to which B.Prokop alludes) -- and which this troll is deliberately conflating with natural born citizenship -- arises only because of a deliberate misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "You don't know that he was born in Hawaii, any more than I do."

Then YOU are poorly informed. The rest of the world knows the facts. Here are some of them:

The fact that Obama was born IN HAWAII shown by: (1) his Hawaii birth certificate and (2) the confirmation of the facts on Obama’s birth certificate by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and (3) the birth notices sent to the 1961 Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii (and only the DOH could send birth notices to that section of the newspapers, and it only did so for births in Hawaii) and (4) the letter that the Hawaii school teacher wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of the birth in Kapiolani Hospital of a child to a woman named Stanley. Moreover, birthers have not even shown that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961—-and it would be highly unlikely that she did since so few 18-year-olds did at the time, And even fewer women traveled abroad in the last few months of pregnancy due to the risk of stillbirths in those days.

SOME of the many documents and articles that confirm the above include:


Here are the confirmations of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/


Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a strong supporter of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

Here are the birth notices of Obama's birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

(And as you can see the section of the paper is called "Health Bureau Statistics". Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

Here is the Index Data file:

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

smrstrauss said...

Continuing:

Okay, at this point a few nuts say things like: "Obama even said that he was born in Kenya."

Answer: Well, no, he didn't. There are some FORGED videos online that claim that he said it, but he didn't, and the fact that birthers forge videos (as they also forged three "Kenyan birth certificates" and a "Columbia University Student ID" that claims that Obama was registered as a foreign student----but Columbia has never issued student ID cards that identify foreign students any differently than US students) is far more proof that birthers are willing to lie than that Obama was born in Kenya or, for that matter, anywhere else than IN HAWAII.

But, lets take up the Kenya LIE specifically. No, Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he as born in Kenya. Birther sites made that ALL up. In fact, she said that Obama was born in Hawaii in THREE interviews, of which birthers showed only part of one, cutting off the tape recordings on their sites just before she said "In Hawaii, where his father was studying at the time."

So, birther lies do not show that Obama was born in Kenya or outside the USA. All that they show is that birthers are willing to lie---and they lied about Obama's birth certificate being forged too (and for exactly the same motive).

Rational people who are tempted to believe: ""You don't know that he was born in Hawaii, any more than I do" simply because llion says it, should consider the facts shown above, and then consider this:

For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1970], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) Obama’s relative would have had to have gotten the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, Obama’s relatives would have had to have found one of the very few women in Hawaii with fathers of that name to do it).


(Oh, and there isn’t even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did, and EXTREMELY few women traveled abroad late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites hope that a few GULLIBLE people will just assume that she was one of the few to have a passport and one of the extremely few women to travel abroad late in pregnancy, and that the birth certificate is forged and the officials of BOTH parties who have confirmed it and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers and the teacher who wrote home are all lying. )


smrstrauss said...

llion also claims: "AND, as I keep poiniting out -- including (once again) in the very OP -- *where* a person is born has nothing to do with whether he is a natural born US citizen. A person is a natural born US citizen if, and only if, his parents (*) are citizens, whether naturalized or natural born, at the time of his birth."

Rational people will notice that the Chief Justice of the United States, who has some small knowledge of the Constitution, swore in Obama several times after both the 2008 and 2012 elections.

The reason that he did, duh, is that llion is wrong and the Hertiage Foundation book on the US Constitution is right:



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

B. Prokop said...

"Rational people will notice that the Chief Justice of the United States, who has some small knowledge of the Constitution, swore in Obama several times after both the 2008 and 2012 elections."

Uhh... That's actually a very good point, and appears (at least to me) to be decisive. How do you answer that, Ilion? Are you saying that you understand the constitution better than Chief Justice Roberts?

SRV said...

Are you saying that you understand the constitution better than Chief Justice Roberts?

Actually, I think he clearly does, as do I. The Supremes refuse even to uphold the basic rights supposedly protected in the Bill of Rights (witness the erosion of the 4th Amendment, as just one small example.)

smrstrauss said...

Re: " The Supremes refuse even to uphold the basic rights supposedly protected in the Bill of Rights...'

So SRV is claiming that the US Supreme Court is part of a massive plot. Well, it's not. Just because you do not like what the US Supreme Court has done does not mean that it is part of a massive plot.

The fact is that the current chief justice of the Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation definition of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen are the same for the excellent reason that they ARE the same:



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

And there is more:

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."---The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html?KEYWORDS=obama+%22natural+born+citizen%22+minor+happersett)

"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)

More reading on the subject:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/birtherism-2012

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/scotus-natural-born-citizen-a-compendium.html

SRV said...

So SRV is claiming that the US Supreme Court is part of a massive plot

Where did I say that? Of course, the U.S. Federal government as currently existing is a massive criminal organization, but its members and followers and beneficiaries are quite open about their hostility to liberty and the Constitution. But that's another story.

I think it is now safe for me to ignore anything you chose to copy/paste on this topic from here on out, since you aren't able to comprehend simple English sentences.

smrstrauss said...

SRV has said: "I think it is now safe for me to ignore anything you chose to copy/paste on this topic..."

Rational people will notice that SRV has said that SRV intends to ignore the facts. That does not mean that YOU should ignore the facts, and they are shown above.

Ilíon said...

some copy-paste troll: "Rational people will notice that the Chief Justice of the United States, who has some small knowledge of the Constitution, swore in Obama several times after both the 2008 and 2012 elections."

someone who is actively resisting *thinking* about the matter: "Uhh... That's actually a very good point, and appears (at least to me) to be decisive. How do you answer that, Ilion? Are you saying that you understand the constitution better than Chief Justice Roberts?"

Chief Justice Roberts? You mean the same fellow whose position vis-à-vis the humorously misnamed Affordable Care Act is that it both is and is not a tax, depending on what needs to be "proven" today? That Chief Justice Roberts? Mister "I Need To Polish My 'Legacy' With the Enemies of the Republic"? That one?

Was your question part of that vaudeville act you've been working on?

Ilíon said...

When it was the Democrats trying to Constitutionally disqualify a Republican, everyone understood and agreed with the *meaning* of the facts. The disagreement was about what the facts were: was Arthur's father a US citizen at the time of Arthur's birth (and thus, Chester Arthur *was* a natural born citizen), or was he not (and thus, Chester Arthur *was Not* a natural born citizen)?

In the case of Obama -- and Cruz, and Jindal, and Rubio -- there is no dispute about the pertinent fact: when these men were born, their fathers were not US citizens. Furthermore, in the case of Obama, his father never was naturalized. Therefore, in the grand "progressive" tradition, since the facts are clear and beyond dispute, muddy the water about the point of law to which those facts are pertinent.

When the then Chief Justice of the United States wrote -- in passing ... and *after* adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and prior to the dispute about Chester Arthur -- in the Minor v, Happersett decision, that "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
...
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. ...
"

This was written, as I say, "in passing", because the case was not about the meaning of the term 'natural born citizen', but rather about whether a woman, *being* a natural born citizen, naturally had the franchise. The meaning of the term 'natural born citizen' was not in dispute ... not until the Democrats, enslaved to their anti-American leftists, needed it to be in dispute so as to "qualify" an anti-American leftist to occupy the office of US President.

Ilíon said...

What has changed between that time and ours?

No *laws* have changed so as to invalidate the Justice's statement that "These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since." (*). No *laws* have redefined the meaning of the term 'natural born citizen'. No facts about the dispute over whether Chester Arthur was or was not a natural born citizen have changed.

It seems to me that all that has changed is that *now* the Democrats ran, and managed to "elect", a candidate for President whom they knew is not a natural born citizen ... and the Republicans, using that "precident", wish to run as candidates for President persons they know are not 'natural born citizens'.



(*) which statement in its context exposes one of the lies popular with anti-Constitutionalists that the Naturalization Act of 1795 invalidates the clarification provided to the term 'natural born citizen' by the Naturalization Act of 1790

Ilíon said...

that copy-paste troll: "Rational people will notice that SRV has said that SRV intends to ignore the facts."

In truth, the thing that *rational* people will notice is that 'smrstrauss' is a troll who is deployed by the Democrats to copy-and-paste walls of text whenever their 'bot notice that someone if discussing natural born citizenship a=in relation to Obama.

B. Prokop said...

Maybe we should make things easier, and just amend that particular clause of the Constitution to read:

"No Person shall be eligible to the Office of President other than a citizen of the United States who shall have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been at least fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

I can see how the original wording might have had some value in 1789, but it doesn't seem to serve any discernible purpose today.

In fact... on closer reading, it appears that the original wording means no one alive today can legally be President. After all, it clearly states that to be eligible, a person must be a either a natural born citizen or a citizen of the US "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". It also explicitly states that the President must have "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" Note the specificity. It does not say "at least 14 years" - just "14 years" (I added the "at least" in my above re-wording). So anyone who has been a resident for, say, 15 years (or more) is NOT ELIGIBLE! Yikes!

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Chief Justice Roberts? You mean the same fellow whose position vis-à-vis the humorously misnamed Affordable Care Act is that it both is and is not a tax, depending on what needs to be "proven" today? That Chief Justice Roberts? Mister "I Need To Polish My 'Legacy' With the Enemies of the Republic"? That one?"

Yes that fellow.

Your not like what Roberts did does not make him any less the chief justice or reduce his knowledge of the US Constitution, and the reason that he swore in Obama is that your nutty idea that to be a Natural Born US citizen a person has to have two US citizen parents is WRONG.

The Heritage Foundation book's definition is right:


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

And, guess what, birthers took their "You gotta have two citizen parents" theory to ten or eleven appeals courts----and lost every single time.

Here are some examples:


Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling: “Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “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.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”


Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

smrstrauss said...

Re: "Troll."

That is your word for people who post things that you do not like. Well, tough.

IF there were a particle of an atom of sense to the "you gotta have two citizen parents" theory, Mitt Romney and/or Paul Ryan and/or Karl Rove (not to mention Gingrich and Santorum and Huckabee and Ann Coulter and the National Review and Rand Paul and Ron Paul would have said something about it.

They have not said anything. Neither has any member of Congress.

They are not all traitors, nor have they ALL been blackmailed or threatened. The fact is that they all know that term Natural Born Citizen came from the common law (not from Vattel, who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers) and that it refers to citizenship at birth and that every child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen---which is just what the Heritage Foundation book says (and, BTW, it was published in 2005----three years before Obama ran for president).

smrstrauss said...

Re: " it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. "

And the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, which was after Minor v. Happersett, resolved the doubts when it ruled (six justices to two justices, one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and members of enemy armies.

BTW, even the Minor v. Happersett ruling never said that two citizen parents are required, only that there have been doubts as to whether people born on the soil with one or no citizen parents are Natural Born Citizens. But a "doubt" is not a decision.

Ilíon said...

B.Prokop: "Maybe we should make things easier, and just amend that particular clause of the Constitution to read: ..."

I disagree, adamantly.

Nevertheless, whether we should or should not, we have not. And, until we do, then the aforementioned gentlemen are not Constitutionally qualified to be US President ... and the one currently illegally occupying the office is, by that very act (even without taking into account all the damage he is intentionally inflicting upon the Republic), at war with the US Constitution.

smrstrauss said...

Re: " illegally occupying the office..."

Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the USA (who knows a bit about the Constitution). And his being sworn in was not objected to by Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan or Karl Rove or the Republican Party, and they all know the Constitution and have legal experts who know it.

And the definitions of the Heritage Foundation book above agrees, since it holds that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen.

So, if you want to vote for someone other than Rubio, go right ahead. But if you are doing so because you think that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, you are wrong. (Cruz, having been born on foreign soil, is less certain to be a Natural Born Citizen.)