If they are the same, why use different terms?

[Diogenes]

Code: Select all

I say, no, and it doesn't matter where he was born. He could be born in the White house itself, and he still wouldn't qualify. Once the meaning and purpose of Article II is researched and understood, it becomes quite apparent that it is impossible to meet those requirements with a non citizen parent. 

I think it is clear that the intent of the article is to prevent someone with allegiance to another country from becoming the leader of this country's executive branch and armed forces. If Obama was not born a citizen of the US then what country was he born a citizen to, and what country do you propose he has allegiance to. I have to wonder about your intent when you say you do not care where he was born, where he spent his life, or anything that seems to actually qualify someone to be president of the united states.

It is a difficult question to answer. He may in fact be an Article II natural born citizen, but if he is, that would only be because Barack Obama Sr. might not be his father. If Barack Obama Sr. IS really his father, then It would seem that he would be regarded as having dual citizenship. He would acquire British citizenship from his father, and Possibly acquire American Citizenship from his mother. (I've read that the law in effect at that time prevents someone so young from transferring citizenship to their offspring *IF* the offspring is not born on American soil. If he wasn't actually born on American soil, he's not even an American citizen. )

As a result, he is precluded from meeting the requirements of "Natural Born Citizen."

If, on the other hand, his father is "Frank Marshall Davis" as some allege, Then he would have American Citizenship from both parents, making him qualified as regard's the letter of Article II, but certainly not the spirit.

In any case, I intend to put forth further information that demonstrates the founders Understanding, Meaning and intent, behind Article II, requires two citizen parents, and can cannot be accomplished with one.

[chrismb]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

The only cases for non-qualification for jus soli in this regard are if you were on US soil for some limited classes of exceptions, e.g. one is if you were born to non-US diplomats who were resident in the US at the time.

[Diogenes]

Where did this "natural born citizen" notion come from? Certainly not English Law. English law does use the term "natural born subject", but a citizen and a subject are very different things. The British law grants subject status to anyone born on any soil they claim, and anyone born to a British subject father. Obviously it is in the King's best interest to claim non revocable subject status from as many people as possible, and so British law is written to cast as broad a net as it can.

Citizenship is different. You can voluntarily give it up and become the citizen of another nation. Being a subject however, will always be considered to be a servant of the Crown whether they like it or not.

Anyway, the argument is that this section of the Constitution is derived from a book called "The Law of Nations" by Emmerich de Vatell in 1758. In book one chapter 19:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

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


So a guy from Switzerland writes a book in French about how nations ought to behave and manage their affairs. The fact that a book existed at this time which describes this exact concept does not prove that it was the basis of the founders intent behind Article II when they wrote that into the constitution. They might not even be familiar with the book. After all, it was originally written in French, and only later translated into English. Perhaps the founders never had any knowledge of this book? Well, Benjamin Franklin puts that notion to rest.

Benjamin Franklin to: Charles William Frederic Dumas

Dear Sir,
Philadelphia, 9 December, 1775.

....


I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idee sur le Gouvernement et la Royaute" is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces, which accompanied Vattel.

....

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/to ... ision=div1


Whoa! Apparently the founders knew of it, and actually read it. Apparently they had 12 years to get familiar with it before the Constitutional Convention.

[Diogenes]

Another FUN Fact!


George Washington's library book returned 221 yrs late


Gee, I wonder what book George was reading way back in those days?

The library said in a statement that its borrowing records, or charging ledger, showed Washington took out "The Law of Nations" by Emer de Vattel on October 5, 1789.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J4EG20100520

[KitemanSA]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

I was born of American parents over seas, not on "American Soil". I was told I am not eligible to be POTUS, even though I was registered at the consolate at the time of my birth.

If I had been born at the consolate, ~12 miles away, I would be eligible as the consolate is considered "American Soil". I am not sure that applies to ALL consolates, but I was told it applied to that one.

I may have been misinformed on either count.

[Diogenes]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

The only cases for non-qualification for jus soli in this regard are if you were on US soil for some limited classes of exceptions, e.g. one is if you were born to non-US diplomats who were resident in the US at the time.

The definition as put forth by Vatell, (and I am demonstrating that our Constitutional document is most definitely based on Vatell) requires two citizen parents and birth on the soil. (Jus Soli AND Jus Sanguinis)








On a related note, a lot of people do not know that Prior to 1920, a woman could not transfer American citizenship. Only the FATHER could transfer citizenship, and the mother's citizenship was irrelevant. American law regarded the woman as having the same citizenship as the Husband, regardless of what it was previously.

The British Law at the time also asserted that the Father was needed to Transfer citizenship.

“To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”

To sum up your point, he would be a "Citizen" but he would not be a "Natural Born Citizen", according to the meaning used when it was written into the US Constitution, and therefore not qualified under Article II.

[Diogenes]

Can you clarify for my lowly misunderstandings of the American constitution - I was under the impression that the current right to stand for Presidency of the US is based on whether you were an American Citizen at birth, and jus sanguinis ('right of blood') means that you need not be born on US soil to qualify, provided, of course, you have an American parent? Citizenship is not something you need to 'apply' for, for example - if any such applications need be made then they are merely applications for the issue of documents to provide documentation on said citizenship.

So, to my understanding, if Obama was born on the planet Mars, so long as at least one of his parents was American at the time then he's 'qualified' to be POTUS.

I was born of American parents over seas, not on "American Soil". I was told I am not eligible to be POTUS, even though I was registered at the consolate at the time of my birth.

If I had been born at the consolate, ~12 miles away, I would be eligible as the consolate is considered "American Soil". I am not sure that applies to ALL consolates, but I was told it applied to that one.

I may have been misinformed on either count.

To be honest, I think the soil requirement is the lesser of the two conditions, and some people argue that it is completely irrelevant. I must confess, I regard the soil issue as trivial because I cannot fathom how a child should acquire a love for a nation, simply because he was physically there when he was born. It is far more important to have a father and family that instills a sense of duty, patriotism and love of country than it is to emerge on land circumscribed by boundaries.

John McCain, for example, was born to Two American Citizen Parents, in Panama by command of the US Government to serve it's needs and interests. How can it be reasonable to interdict the son as a result of the Father's faithfully service under orders?

From my reading, the birth of children to agents of a government doing that government's bidding have always been regarded as a well known exception to the rule. How it would play in a legal system rife with hair-splitting and technicalities, I really don't know. Anyway, I'm still learning this stuff.

[KitemanSA]

I was under the impression that ANYONE born on American soil (the green circle) had claim to American citizenship no matter what the citizenship of the parents. This explains why pregnant women are often so despairate to get across the US border.

[Giorgio]

I was under the impression that ANYONE born on American soil (the green circle) had claim to American citizenship no matter what the citizenship of the parents. This explains why pregnant women are often so despairate to get across the US border.

This is also my knowledge, and is the way it works in all the countries with few exceptions.

I'll be surprised if in the US is not like this.

[Diogenes]

I was under the impression that ANYONE born on American soil (the green circle) had claim to American citizenship no matter what the citizenship of the parents. This explains why pregnant women are often so despairate to get across the US border.

Addressing this point is going to move the conversation further afield, but it is useful to cover this area. (I was going to get to it eventually anyway.)


The belief that anyone born on American Soil is automatically an American citizen is wrong. Unfortunately, it is a wide spread misnomer. The origin for this false belief occurs as a result of misunderstanding the meaning of the 14th amendment. Here is the relevant text.

14th Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

To go a little further down this side issue, I will point out that the 14th amendment was based on the Civil Rights act of 1866, where the meaning is far clearer.

The Civil Rights Act- April 9, 1866

An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted . . ., That all 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; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was widely ignored, the Republican Congress pushed for a Constitutional Amendment. It passed congress and breezed through the Northern States, (The Southern States weren't allowed to vote.) becoming the 14th amendment.


Anyway, if you look at it carefully, you notice that it expressly precludes anyone not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which means illegal immigrants, Indians, Denizens, etc.


How did people get so confused about the original meaning of the 14th amendment? Ann Coulter blames Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38409



Getting back on track, the entire premise of this thread is that the term "Citizen" is not the same thing as "Natural Born Citizen". So 14th amendment citizenship makes you a "Citizen" but does not automatically make you a "Natural Born Citizen" according to the meaning of the term as expressed in Article II of the US Constitution.
THAT type of citizenship requires you to have American Citizen parents, ESPECIALLY the father.

[Diogenes]

I was under the impression that ANYONE born on American soil (the green circle) had claim to American citizenship no matter what the citizenship of the parents. This explains why pregnant women are often so despairate to get across the US border.

This is also my knowledge, and is the way it works in all the countries with few exceptions.

I'll be surprised if in the US is not like this.

My understanding is the exact opposite. From my reading the vast majority of countries will not allow you to be a citizen just from being born in their country. You must be there legally.


Think about it. Why would any sane country grant citizenship to the children of people who break it's laws and thwart it's will as their first act upon entering? Only a fool would think this notion reasonable. (Harry Blackmun, Idiot Liberal judge.)

[ladajo]

Giorgio,
ma in italia, non si diventa italiano senze habitazione in italia per un periodo <penso> sei anni prima que si hai seidici anni. Il mio figlio era nato li, e lui non hai permesso a prendere nazionale italiano per questa.

[chrismb]

John McCain, for example, was born to Two American Citizen Parents, in Panama by command of the US Government to serve it's needs and interests.

I love this ambiguous punctuation. I did get the impression that the US was aspiring to omnipotence but being able to cause a birth by command is pretty impressive. (And how did they know John McCain's birth was necessary to serve the US's needs? Maybe there really is a "Flashforward" type project being run somewhere? Or maybe omnicience naturally comes with omnipotence?)

[Diogenes]

John McCain, for example, was born to Two American Citizen Parents, in Panama by command of the US Government to serve it's needs and interests.

I love this ambiguous punctuation. I did get the impression that the US was aspiring to omnipotence but being able to cause a birth by command is pretty impressive. (And how did they know John McCain's birth was necessary to serve the US's needs? Maybe there really is a "Flashforward" type project being run somewhere? Or maybe omnicience naturally comes with omnipotence?)

Ha ha... Well, Winston Churchill remarked (after someone corrected his English)
"This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put!"

Sometimes I'm so busy trying to get the words out (we all think much faster than we can type) that I occasionally make a grammatical blunder. Actually, probably a lot, but the important thing is to get the point across.

[Diogenes]

To get a better sense of the mindset of the founding era, and one particularly important founding father, I thought i'd post the following quotes.

“You are not to enlist any person who is not an American born, unless such person has a wife and family, and is a settled resident of this country.” George Washington, Given at headquarters, at Cambridge, this 10 July, 1775.

In a letter from Gen. Washington to Col. Spotswood, dated in 1777, in a publication entitled “Maxims of Washington,” p. 192, the following passage occurs: –

“You will therefore send me none but natives, and men of some property, if you have them. I must insist that in making this choice you give no intimation of my preference for natives, as I do not want to create any individual distinction between them and foreigners.”

In Commander Washington’s General Orders of July 7, 1775 given at Head Quarters, Cambridge by Horatio Gates, Adj. General to Parole-Dorchester, Countersign-Exeter:

“The General has great Reason; and is highly displeased, with the Negligence and Inattention of those Officers, who have placed as Centries at the out-posts, Men with whose Character they are not acquainted. He therefore orders, that for the future, no Man shall be appointed to those important Stations, who is not a Native of this Country, or has a Wife, or Family in it, to whom he is known to be attached. This Order is to be consider’d as a standing one and the Officers are to pay obedience to it at their peril.” - 11 Fox, Adj. Gen. of the day. 9

“Dear Sir: I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects I am to do with the many foreigners that have at different times been promoted to the rank of field-officers, and by their last resolve two of that of colonels? These men have no attachment for the country further than interest binds them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have toiled in the service and have sustained many losses, to have strangers put over them, whose merit perhaps is not equal to their own, but who effrontery will take no denial. It is by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must be supported, and not by the few hungry adventurers. I am, &c., GEO. WASHINGTON.”

“Dear Sir: The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a subject of very great importance to the well-being of these states, much more so than will appear at first sight – I mean the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank and trust in our service.

...

This will be productive of much discontent. In a word, although I think the Baron an excellent officer, I do most devoutly wish – that we had not a single foreigner amongst us, except the Marquis de Lafayette, who acts upon very different principles from those which govern the rest.

Adieu. I am, most sincerely yours, GEORGE WASHINGTON.”

‘Cease, sons of America, lamenting our separation. Go on and confirm, by your wisdom, the fruits of our joint councils, joint efforts, and common dangers; reverence religion; diffuse knowledge throughout your lands; patronize the arts and sciences; let liberty and order be inseparable companions. Control party spirit, the bane of free government; observe good faith to, and cultivate peace with, all nations; shut up every avenue to foreign influence; contract rather than extend national connections; rely on yourselves only; be Americans in thought, word and deed. Thus will you give immortality to that union which was the constant object of my terrestrial labors; thus will you preserve undisturbed, to the latest posterity, the felicity of a people to me most dear; and thus will you supply (if my happiness is now ought to you) the only vacancy in the round of pure bliss high Heaven bestows’.

http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/


George Washington? Wasn't he like the President of the US Constitutional Convention or something? Wasn't he the first signature on the Document?