Where is the evidence?

[240B]

In my opinion, Hussein has some kind of history in this country. But, he cannot release his history because he has had several names, all different.
 
When you are a street grifter, without a father, a name becomes relative. If we knew Barry 20 years ago, he would no be Barack Hussein, he would just be Barry.
 
The whole Barack Hussein thin is just branding from Soros, and has no real meaning. They just wanted to stir up the hippies with this name.
 
And they did.

[Bigun]

I do wonder where this debate would be if we were talking about Ted Cruz though...

I can't speak for others but in my case it would be exactly the same!

[MACVSOG68]

I think it's remiss to cite only US v Wong without also noting the relatively obscure but extremely important precedent set in Yu v Wite.  Taken together the two cases lead to the inevitable conclusion:

If loving Yu is Wong I don't wanna be Wite.

 

[MACVSOG68]

Dicta!

The ruling was and is that Wong was a citizen! Nothing more or less than that!

You might want to read the majority opinion again, in which the American meaning and usage of the term "natural born citizen" is explained.  The birthers may want to erase that history and suddenly put us under the French legal system, but it ain't gonna happen.  Thus if Cruz winds up the nominee, I would have no problem voting for him, and IMHO neither would anyone else here.

[MACVSOG68]

I can't speak for others but in my case it would be exactly the same!

So if Cruz were the nominee in '16 you wouldn't vote for him?

[Bigun]

So if Cruz were the nominee in '16 you wouldn't vote for him?

Didn't say that! I said I would make the very same arguments as to his being Constitutionally qualified.

If he became the nominee despite that and my only choice was between him and Hillary I would vote for him in a heartbeat!
 

[Dexter]

my informed guess is IRAN!

What makes this guess informed?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Luis wrote:

While I don't necessarily give any special weight to the author or sponsor of legislation or in this case an amendment to the Constitution, I do agree with your conclusion.  The question of allegiance though is one used by the birthers to support their case, though that issue has long been settled by both legislation and court cases.  Even the issue of dual citizenship has been settled.

I do wonder where this debate would be if we were talking about Ted Cruz though...

You don't give weight to facts which support my argument but do to those which support yours.

Ok.

I resent the fact that you use a derogatory term to describe me in your response. I am not a "birther". Using terms like "birther" is a way to discredit arguments and people who make those arguments by ridiculing them.

I am someone who is not convinced that Obama was qualified to hold the office of POTUS in many ways. Some way more apparent than others.

Insofar as the issue of dicta, no SCOTUS case has ever settled the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen under Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution. Wong gives a couple of insights. Here's one:

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."


In other words, there is no doubt that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under the "born... in the United States" definition set forth in the XIV Amendment, but SCOTUS drew a line of separation between that class of citizenship and "the natural born child of a citizen" in their decision. Under the Constitution only the later qualifies to hold the office of POTUS. Wong is "as much a citizen" as the "natural born child", but not a "natural  born" one.

The SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”, and "parents" has always been plural. So if you're asking me, Ted Cruz in not a natural born citizen, and neither is Marco Rubio. Neither qualify to hold the office under Section 1, Article 2.

That many wish to ignore the obvious fact that the Constitution itself draws a line of separation between what constitutes a citizen and a native in the XIV Amendment, then declares that there is an additional requirement that a native citizen must meet in order to hold the office of POTUS does not make that line of separation between the jus solis citizen of Amendment XIV, and the jus sanguinis citizen of Section 1, Article 2 go away.

[MACVSOG68]

You don't give weight to facts which support my argument but do to those which support yours.

Ok.

The language of an amendment is what counts, as the intent of each of those who vote to approve it may well be different from others who vote for it.  What was the intent of the Second Amendment?

I resent the fact that you use a derogatory term to describe me in your response. I am not a "birther". Using terms like "birther" is a way to discredit arguments and people who make those arguments by ridiculing them.

My apologies if I offended you.  Only now do I recall a few years ago when you and I debated this and other such issues as well as the aftermath.  The term "birther" is pretty common usage even by those who support such ideas, little different from "truthers".  I'm not sure what the politically correct term is...

I am someone who is not convinced that Obama was qualified to hold the office of POTUS in many ways. Some way more apparent than others.

Noted.

Insofar as the issue of dicta, no SCOTUS case has ever settled the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen under Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution. Wong gives a couple of insights. Here's one:

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."


In other words, there is no doubt that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under the "born... in the United States" definition set forth in the XIV Amendment, but SCOTUS drew a line of separation between that class of citizenship and "the natural born child of a citizen" in their decision. Under the Constitution only the later qualifies to hold the office of POTUS. Wong is "as much a citizen" as the "natural born child", but not a "natural  born" one.

I disagree.  What he's saying is that there's no difference between a child born of alien parents and one born of citizen parents.  And the majority opinion further made it clear that the usage of "natural born citizen" in the US came from the British usage, which stated that any birth within the realm created a "natural born subject".

The SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”, and "parents" has always been plural. So if you're asking me, Ted Cruz in not a natural born citizen, and neither is Marco Rubio. Neither qualify to hold the office under Section 1, Article 2.

I completely disagree as stated above.  Both are qualified at least in the legal sense.

That many wish to ignore the obvious fact that the Constitution itself draws a line of separation between what constitutes a citizen and a native in the XIV Amendment, then declares that there is an additional requirement that a native citizen must meet in order to hold the office of POTUS does not make that line of separation between the jus solis citizen of Amendment XIV, and the jus sanguinis citizen of Section 1, Article 2 go away.

The Fourteenth Amendment aside for a moment, what Section I Article II said is simply that other than those who were citizens at the time of adoption (who may have come here from another country) the only persons eligible were those born here, not those who would in the future have to be naturalized.  If we had subscribed to the laws of France, then of course parentage would have been the determining factor.  As it was and is, we followed the common law of Britain. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The language of an amendment is what counts,

I completely disagree as stated above.  Both are qualified at least in the legal sense.
 

We disagree.

If the language of the Amendment is what counts, then it is equally the language of the findings that counts.

The SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”, and "parents" has always been plural.

Language.

In Wong, the Court draws a distinct line of separation between a citizen and a natural born citizen, it does so plainly.

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.

Both are citizens at birth, but one is a natural born citizen and the other is not.

The Constitution plainly states that only the natural born citizen qualifies for POTUS.

[EdinVA]

We disagree.

Since 2 intelligent people cannot agree, why is it not appropriate for congress to clarify the subject?

My suspicion is that Jan 21, 2016, a whole host of "missing" information regarding BO will be miraculously revealed with the sole intent of discrediting the constitution.  The definition of who is eligible to be POTUS is strewn across dozens of documents and findings and all of which are subject to the definition of "is" conversation.

[MACVSOG68]

In Wong, the Court draws a distinct line of separation between a citizen and a natural born citizen, it does so plainly.

The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.

While we apparently see this language differently, further discussions in Wong dispel any notion that the term natural born citizen means anything other than what it meant in Britain at the time, which was that any child born on British soil (with a couple of exceptions) was a natural born subject:

"In Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor (1833), 3 Pet. 99, in which the plaintiff was born in the city of New York about the time of the Declaration of Independence, the justices of this court (while differing in opinion upon other points) all agreed that the law of England as to citizenship by birth was the law of the English Colonies in America. Mr. Justice Thompson, speaking for the majority of the court, said:

It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the Colonies of North America, whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain, are natural-born British subjects."

"In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . .

"And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives"

"In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: '...The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history'

There are several more such references and discussions of the term natural born citizen as written in the Constitution and its relationship to the British usage, including the necessary determination of allegiance.

Justice Gray's very lengthy history of the usage of the term included several prior court cases supporting its ties to English common law.

So while some may disagree with all of those cases and interpretations, cases after Wong supported this usage.  In essence there are two types of citizen, those born here naturally or those who come here and are naturalized.  The first is a requirement for the presidency; the second grants all other rights and privileges. 

Some argue that the Fourteenth Amendment conveys all rights and privileges on both types of citizens and in fact sets aside the natural born requirement.  That's another issue for another time.

[MACVSOG68]

Since 2 intelligent people cannot agree, why is it not appropriate for congress to clarify the subject?

My suspicion is that Jan 21, 2016, a whole host of "missing" information regarding BO will be miraculously revealed with the sole intent of discrediting the constitution.  The definition of who is eligible to be POTUS is strewn across dozens of documents and findings and all of which are subject to the definition of "is" conversation.

It's interesting that Congress did in fact do that with McCain's birth outside the US, though it was simply a "sense of the Congress declaration", having no legal impact.

[Bigun]

I am someone who is not convinced that Obama was qualified to hold the office of POTUS in many ways. Some way more apparent than others.

Insofar as the issue of dicta, no SCOTUS case has ever settled the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen under Section 1, Article 2 of the US Constitution. Wong gives a couple of insights. Here's one:

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."


In other words, there is no doubt that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen under the "born... in the United States" definition set forth in the XIV Amendment, but SCOTUS drew a line of separation between that class of citizenship and "the natural born child of a citizen" in their decision. Under the Constitution only the later qualifies to hold the office of POTUS. Wong is "as much a citizen" as the "natural born child", but not a "natural  born" one.

The SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”, and "parents" has always been plural. So if you're asking me, Ted Cruz in not a natural born citizen, and neither is Marco Rubio. Neither qualify to hold the office under Section 1, Article 2.

That many wish to ignore the obvious fact that the Constitution itself draws a line of separation between what constitutes a citizen and a native in the XIV Amendment, then declares that there is an additional requirement that a native citizen must meet in order to hold the office of POTUS does not make that line of separation between the jus solis citizen of Amendment XIV, and the jus sanguinis citizen of Section 1, Article 2 go away.

On this issue you and I are n COMPLETE agreement.

[MACVSOG68]

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

You do realize that what he is saying is that the right of citizenship doesn't descend from blood (our parents or other kinship), but rather from being born in a place, don't you?  He is distinguishing jus soli from jus sanguinis.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You do realize that what he is saying is that the right of citizenship doesn't descend from blood (our parents or other kinship), but rather from being born in a place, don't you?  He is distinguishing jus soli from jus sanguinis.

\No, it does not.

There are three types of citizenship.

Naturalized, "born in..." and "natural born".

A "born in..." citizen can indeed be a "natural born" citizen, but the SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

[MACVSOG68]

\No, it does not.

There are three types of citizenship.

Naturalized, "born in..." and "natural born".

A "born in..." citizen can indeed be a "natural born" citizen, but the SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

 .

The burden of those who believe a nbc must include citizen parents is great because that's not how SCOTUS has treated it for most of our history.  Justice Gray could not have been more clear on the subject.  If we followed English common law as he and several other judges have stated, then there is no question.  If we in fact did not follow English common law, then you would have an argument.  But I find nothing that supports three types of citizenship.  And in fact, as I mentioned earlier, some believe the 14th Amendment has settled the issue entirely by making both types of citizens (natural born and naturalized) equal in terms of rights and privileges, which would have modified Article 2, Section 1.

It's not a surprise that no judge or SCOTUS has given the time of day to this or the birth certificate issue.  And most have either ignored it, used the "status" excuse, or in some cases ruled against the claims.

[Bigun]

The Fourteenth Amendment aside for a moment, what Section I Article II said is simply that other than those who were citizens at the time of adoption (who may have come here from another country) the only persons eligible were those born here, not those who would in the future have to be naturalized.  If we had subscribed to the laws of France, then of course parentage would have been the determining factor.  As it was and is, we followed the common law of Britain. 

As has now been explained to you several times already, the founders were very familiar with English common law and realized that it wasn't going to work for them (us) in the case of the presidency because there would not be any established lines of ascendancy to the presidency like there were to the English throne.  That is precisely why they looked to Vatel for the solution.

[MACVSOG68]

As has now been explained to you several times already, the founders were very familiar with English common law and realized that it wasn't going to work for them (us) in the case of the presidency because there would not be any established lines of ascendancy to the presidency like there were to the English throne.  That is precisely why they looked to Vatel for the solution.

Strange that the only words that didn't relate to English common law were essentially the same words used in English common law.    However, as was explained to you several times already, that's why they changed the term from "natural born subject" to "natural born citizen".  At least that's how the courts have seen it through the years.  And given their transition from colonial rule to the Confederation and finally the Republic, it's funny no one caught it until 2008...

But if that issue which was more than covered in the rest of the Constitution had concerned them as you say, wonder why they didn't explain it in the Constitution?  And think about it, while British citizenship was based on birth regardless of the origin of the parents, ascension to the throne was based on blood which was the Vattel solution.  As we both agree, the Founders didn't want blood to be the basis for citizenship so they used the British model rather than the Vattel model.

[Bigun]

Strange that the only words that didn't relate to English common law were essentially the same words used in English common law.    However, as was explained to you several times already, that's why they changed the term from "natural born subject" to "natural born citizen".  At least that's how the courts have seen it through the years.  And given their transition from colonial rule to the Confederation and finally the Republic, it's funny no one caught it until 2008...

But if that issue which was more than covered in the rest of the Constitution had concerned them as you say, wonder why they didn't explain it in the Constitution?  And think about it, while British citizenship was based on birth regardless of the origin of the parents, ascension to the throne was based on blood which was the Vattel solution.  As we both agree, the Founders didn't want blood to be the basis for citizenship so they used the British model rather than the Vattel model.

No! We do not agree and it's apparent that we never will at least on this subject!

[Luis Gonzalez]

.

The burden of those who believe a nbc must include citizen parents is great because that's not how SCOTUS has treated it for most of our history. 

That's simply untrue.

Let me repeat myself. Maybe this time you won't ignore the statement.

The SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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,

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

(A)ll 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.

[MACVSOG68]

That's simply untrue.

Let me repeat myself. Maybe this time you won't ignore the statement.

You mean like you ignored the statements of justices in post 61?

The SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.

In the Venus case, the issue was whether British citizenship trumped US citizenship when the US citizen returned to England to carry on a trade.  The minority opinion expressed by Chief Justice Marshall included a definition of three classes of people in a country, including alien residents.  And whether or not any authority in the US used Vattel for its definition of a natural born citizen is irrelevant to your quote, since Britain certainly didn't subscribe to Vattel, as all persons born in or within the realm of Britain were by definition natural born subjects, regardless of the parentage of the child.

In fact at the very end of Marshall's minority opinion, he distinguishes between two classes of citizen, native and naturalized.  he states:  "I will not pretend to say what distinctions may or may not exist between these two classes of citizens, in a contest of a different description. But in a contest between the United States and the naturalized citizen, in a claim set up by the United States to confiscate his property, he may, I think, protect himself by any defence which would protect a native American".

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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,

The rest of the quote in Minor is pretty important.  Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168]  parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.  Those doubts were addressed in the case you cite below.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

(A)ll 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.

What you did there was cherry-pick a quote used by Justice Gray in leading up to his determination of the definition of natural born citizen in this Country.  Gray attempted to settle the issue of whether we (US) used British common law to develop our own system of laws.  See my post 61 in which I believe, he did just that.

If we (US) used the British system, then unless some other authority is cited, by default the term "natural born citizen" comports with the British term "natural born subject".  This is the logic used by Justice Gray in Wong

But just as with your case cites, mine from Wong are still just dicta.

There's a very good website that does give all sides to this debate, and which has a comments section in which both sides are quite well represented:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

And in any case, we will simply agree to disagree.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

And in any case, we will simply agree to disagree.   

Here is the full Minor quote:

"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." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).

Note the date, Minor was decided a full seven years after the ratification of the XIV Amendment.

According to Minor, there had never been any doubt, in accordance with the nomenclature familiar to the Framers of the Constitution, the children of parents who themselves were citizens were in fact, natural born citizens.

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

Minor also establishes that as early as 1875 there were doubts as to the citizenship status (not whether or not they were natural born citizens, since it previously states that there had never been any doubt as to what constitutes a natural born citizen) of "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", but Wong declared them "citizens". Not natural born citizens, just citizens at birth.

The entire argument made by those who dismiss all this is simple... Obama was born here, so he s a natural born citizen.

Minor clearly dismisses that notion: "... 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."

So let's go back to your statement:

The burden of those who believe a nbc must include citizen parents is great because that's not how SCOTUS has treated it for most of our history.

That's is simply and demonstrably false.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The common law, sir, has prevented the power of the crown from destroying the immunities of the people. We are placed in a still better condition -- in a more favorable situation than perhaps any people ever were before. We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire." - George Mason, before Congress, June 19th, 1788

[MACVSOG68]

Here is the full Minor quote:

Note the date, Minor was decided a full seven years after the ratification of the XIV Amendment.

According to Minor, there had never been any doubt, in accordance with the nomenclature familiar to the Framers of the Constitution, the children of parents who themselves were citizens were in fact, natural born citizens.

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

Minor also establishes that as early as 1875 there were doubts as to the citizenship status (not whether or not they were natural born citizens, since it previously states that there had never been any doubt as to what constitutes a natural born citizen) of "children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents", but Wong declared them "citizens". Not natural born citizens, just citizens at birth.

The entire argument made by those who dismiss all this is simple... Obama was born here, so he s a natural born citizen.

Minor clearly dismisses that notion: "... 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."

So let's go back to your statement:

That's is simply and demonstrably false.

I gave you the full Minor quote.  There was no question that children born here of citizen parents were natural born citizens.  But that didn't exclude others born here, and if you read all of Wong you would see that we did subscribe to British common law in most areas.  And certainly Vattel wouldn't have been used for that purpose since the term "natural born citizen" wasn't even translated into English from Vattel until years after the Constitution was written.

Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but this one is relatively close.  And since there's never been two classes of citizens who were born here, if what you purport to be true, and if Vattel is the correct authority, then in fact Obama isn't even a citizen since to my knowledge he's never been naturalized.  In any case, many people believe the 14th Amendment put that issue to rest by stating only two classes of citizenship exists.