Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"

washington DC has about 897,876,345 lawers, all who presumably studied the constitution at some point

how many have come out about this ?

(birthers filing lawsuits to sell books don't count)

Originally posted by ANOK

You said that only US born natural-citizens can be president, to match your claim of what the constitution says. But I showed you that you are a natural born citizen even if you're born abroad of US parents, or parent (in my case my father). So re-read that constitution with the comma in place, and it means what I have already explained. I mean I wasn't sure when I first posted on this, but now I'm convinced you are wrong.

Can I be president? You're saying I can't, but what is stopping me? As far as the US is concerned I am a natural born citizen.

How is that hard to understand? Because you want to continue believing the conspiracy?

I started this thread and said in my OP exactly what you've said here. I believe Obama is eligible for office.

EDIT TO ADD
What I stated in my OP and apparantly what you've been trying to drill into my head:

One could be born and raised in Iran and still be eligible for the presidency provided they have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and their parents are U.S. citizens.

Did you even fully read my post? Our logic is different, but we've both arrived at the same conclusion.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by de Thor

 

How are you interpenetrating the word 'adopt' in this context?

What does this line mean to you...

'at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution'

Please don't get frustrated, I am simply trying to get my head around this, I'm not trying to just debunk you.
I know the English language and it's grammar well enough to see how it reads.

edit on 1/30/2012 by ANOK because: typo

Adopt as in the day they transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and implemented it as the law of the land. That is the interpretation used by everyone.

I was watching the court video's posted on Y/T today and was surprised to her it but it does state BOTH parentS must be citizens.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by de Thor
Adopt as in the day they transitioned from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and implemented it as the law of the land. That is the interpretation used by everyone.

You keep saying we agree, but I'm still not sure we do?

That interpretation what I was unsure of, thank you for your clarification. As I said at the start I know nothing about the constitution.

But it still doesn't make sense to me the way you originally interpreted it, do you agree with this or not?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." This originally just applied when the father was an American citizen, but in 1934 the law was updated to include mothers.

www.nysun.com...

If that is true then how can 'Adopt' mean what you're saying? Because you said...

'A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution' without the comma.

And you said this...

'Obviously the requirement to be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is irrelevant today.'

Which I may have misunderstood?

And you said this...

Originally posted by de Thor

Originally posted by NoClue206

Originally posted by de Thor
]One could be born and raised in Iran and still be eligible for the presidency provided they have lived in the U.S. for 14 years and their parents are U.S. citizens.

Both parents have to be citizens do they not?

Correct. And at least one must have lived within the U.S. For how long, it doesn't say.

Again I have only one US parent and I am a natural born citizen, and my father had lived in the UK since the 1950's.

So I hope you can see my confusion as to what you are saying?

Originally posted by ANOK
But it still doesn't make sense to me the way you originally interpreted it, do you agree with this or not?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 states that "the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." This originally just applied when the father was an American citizen, but in 1934 the law was updated to include mothers.

Yes, I agree.

If that is true then how can 'Adopt' mean what you're saying? Because you said...

'A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution' without the comma.

And you said this...

'Obviously the requirement to be a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is irrelevant today.'

Which I may have misunderstood?

If "A citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" had not been added, no one would have been allowed to be president. Technically, all those who could have been eligible for office (over 35 years of age, 14 years of living in the country) would not have been able to become president because they weren't born in the United States we know today but were born in the colonies which was under British rule and that made them British subjects. By adding "A citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" it gave those who had fought for the creation of the U.S. a chance to become president. Furthermore, no one had been a citizen of the United States for 14 years because the country had just been created.

Like you said earlier, legal jargon is weird, so the Founding Fathers made sure to include this in the requirements to become president.

Again I have only one US parent and I am a natural born citizen, and my father had lived in the UK since the 1950's.

So I hope you can see my confusion as to what you are saying?

Categories to be a natural born citizen, as per U.S. Code, with your situation bolded:

-Anyone born inside the United States
-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
-Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
-A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Obama could have been born in Kenya and STILL been eligible for office because he would be in the exact same situation as you.

Originally posted by de Thor

Yes, I agree.

OK then why did reply with this?...

Originally posted by NoClue206

Both parents have to be citizens do they not?

Correct. And at least one must have lived within the U.S. For how long, it doesn't say.

You are contradicting yourself? That is what confused me. Both parents do not have to be US citizens. The one that is does has to have lived in the US for 5 years.

If "A citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" had not been added, no one would have been allowed to be president. Technically, all those who could have been eligible for office (over 35 years of age, 14 years of living in the country) would not have been able to become president because they weren't born in the United States we know today but were born in the colonies which was under British rule and that made them British subjects. By adding "A citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" it gave those who had fought for the creation of the U.S. a chance to become president. Furthermore, no one had been a citizen of the United States for 14 years because the country had just been created.

Hmm that doesn't make sense to me. Because for one it doesn't say, "A citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". It says "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". You can't ignore the comma. I fail to see why you can't see the difference? You are creating a new statement by taking out the comma. The other reason I was confused.

Categories to be a natural born citizen, as per U.S. Code, with your situation bolded:

-Anyone born inside the United States
-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
-Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
-A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

OK so I was right, only one parent needs to be a citizen. So we agree, but damn you went on a long confusing path to get there lol. But you are still reading it wrong without the comma, if you read it as I said originally then you would still be correct in your conclusion. My argument here was over the grammar, not whether Obama is eligible or not, I really don't care about that, they're all ineligible AFAIK.

Originally posted by ANOK

OK then why did reply with this?...

You are contradicting yourself? That is what confused me. Both parents do not have to be US citizens. The one that is does has to have lived in the US for 5 years.

I was answering the question in the context of my example on Iran. The way I read his question, he was uncertain about my scenario and was simply trying to confirm that for it to be true, one must have had two parents with U.S. citizenship.

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmm that doesn't make sense to me. Because for one it doesn't say, "A citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution". It says "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". You can't ignore the comma. I fail to see why you can't see the difference? You are creating a new statement by taking out the comma. The other reason I was confused.

I don't get your obsession with the comma. What's the difference between the two statements? In America, when I was taught how to use commas (this is like 1st grade, so obviously it's not an exact science), we were told that whenever you take a breath or pause in a sentence, add a comma.

So when I read this statement, "Or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" I imagine a frail, old man in a powdered wig speaking in a British accent to a packed court room, wagging his finger around saying something like this (bear with me here):

*normal tone* No person except a natural born Citizen (pause) or a Citizen of the United States (pause) *rushed judicious tone and rise in pitch of voice* at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution (pause) *return to normal tone* shall be eligible for the Office...


I urge you to read the Constitution. It's is a very short document and has many, many more sentences like the one we are discussing. They had a very unique style of writing back then. Check out the wording and grammar on the Second Amendment; that one will make your head hurt.

reply to post by de Thor

Dear de Thor,

Sorry to interrupt, but I had a nagging little question that I wanted to resolve. Did we agree that the problem in Georgia centered on the fact that Obama's dad was not an American citizen, and that that caused the issue that was going to have to go through the courts?

You were sure that Obama would win in the end, but I wasn't sure one way or the other? If I got that right I'll be able to sleep well tonight, so help me out.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by de Thor

 

Dear de Thor,

Sorry to interrupt, but I had a nagging little question that I wanted to resolve. Did we agree that the problem in Georgia centered on the fact that Obama's dad was not an American citizen, and that that caused the issue that was going to have to go through the courts?

You were sure that Obama would win in the end, but I wasn't sure one way or the other? If I got that right I'll be able to sleep well tonight, so help me out.

With respect,
Charles1952

The case against Obama in Georgia is twofold: A pair of lawyers are arguing against his claim to be a "natural born citizen" and another lawyer is questioning his birth certificate and Social Security number. In my personal opinion, if the judge decides against Obama, it will be because of the "natural born citizen" issue, not the birth certificate one. I believe that the birth certificate and Social Security number arguments hold no water.

From an article on www.americanthinker.com:

The hearing proceeded as planned, even though the table for the defense was empty. Attorneys Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield presented their cases first and offered compelling arguments -- not regarding Obama's birthplace, but rather that the non-U.S. citizenship of Obama's father precluded Obama's "natural born" eligibility under the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. Attorney Orly Taitz, however, did present interesting evidence that questioned the validity of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number.

Keep this in mind, though: Even if the court in Georgia were to rule that Obama is not eligible, it wouldn't matter. It's only a "suggestion" and the final decision as to whether Obama is on the ballot or not falls to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

Finally, a well-reasoned analysis of the question.

The "birfers" have created in their imagination a third category of citizens. There were already two categories: those who were born citizens and those who were naturalized. The birfers had a third, namely someone who was born a citizen yet not considered "a natural born citizen"; this category never has existed in American law.

The issue was at least indicated in the NY case of Lynch v. Clarke (NY Chanc. 1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, NY Leg.Obs. 236. In that case it was specifically held that a person born in the US to two British tourists, who shorter thereafter returned to England with the baby, none of them coming again to America, was "a natural born citizen of the United States." This holding was described as "an indisputable proposition", and as "established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States." (Sandf. at 639, Leg.Obs. at 238)

In fact the court offered an observation that makes that case especially appropriate:
"And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. 'No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President.' etc. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor. ....." (Sandf. at 656, Leg.Obs. at 246-247)

The Lynch decision was cited as precedent in the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) 169 US 649, 42 L.Ed. 890, 18 S.Ct 456, which held that a person born here to two Chinese parents (who were prevented by Federal law from obtaining US citizen) was, himself, a "natural born" US citizen. And the Lynch decision was cited and discussed at length in the federal circuit decision in In re Look Tin Sing (D.Calif. 1884) 21 F. 905, 10 Sawy. 353, which held that someone similarly born here to two Chinese parents, who thereafter goes to China and stays there many years, may come back to the US and be readmitted without automatically because "it is enough that he was born here, whatever was the status of his parents."

The closest the birfers come to citing a precedent case is Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 US (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed 627, but there they must to tea leaf reading. The case was an early suit over women's right to vote, the plaintiff having been born in the US to American parents. The Supreme Court noted that there were (only) two ways to acquire citizenship - by birth and by naturalization. There was no doubt that the plaintiff, born here to citizen parents, was a native born citizen -- the Supreme Court deliberately refrained from considering the status of someone born here but to non-citizen parents, since that was not the situation in the immediate case and no such person was involved in the case. Birfers take the Court's deliberate silence about a situation not at hand as supporting birfer doctrine but it isn't so and the Supreme Court took a clear position 23 years later in Wong Kim Ark.