Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
April 18, 2014

Beware the Facebook Conversation That Spurs Birther Debate

An incredulous Redditor is trying to wrap his head around how anyone can so loathe President Barack Obama they would consciously — and deliberately — choose to cling to outright fabrications rather than cut 44 some slack.

Conversation starter Bleach3825 suffered the jarring revelation after confronting, initially on Facebook, a high-school acquaintance about her seemingly rabid disdain for POTUS.

After presenting her with what he apparently believed was adequate proof that Obama is a native-born American and questioning her unwavering allegiance to the citizenship-denying camp, the dissenting party only dug in deeper:

Beware the Facebook Conversation That Spurs Birther Debate

(CQ Roll Call Photo Illustration)

“Don’t really care if it is accurate or not at this point. Interesting fiction is still entertaining,” the die-hard detractor declared on Facebook.

How can you argue with that?

Not sure if there’s any room in your echo chamber for a little theme music, but this one’s for you, Madam Hater:

Rock. On.

Got Gossip?

Submit your hot tips and juicy gossip. Send us your anonymous tips here

  • David Farrar

    But the US Const.( Art. II, §I, cl. 4) calls for a “natural” born (US) citizen, not a ‘native’ born (US) citizen. There is a difference between the phrases “native-born” and “natural-born”. A native born person is someone whose citizenship is acquired by positive (man-made) law; whereas a natural born person is someone who acquires their citizenship without the application of positive law. They are natural born citizens.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • Dave B.

      A legal distinction which exists, of course, only in birther imaginations.

      • David Farrar

        Yes, of course they do. Every word in the US Const. is placed in that precise spot for a reason, with many people attesting to its accuracy and supporting its meaning and placement. And if there are phrases in the US Const. that have no legal distinction, let l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence be their guide.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

        • Dave B.

          Yes, that’s nice, David, but hollow rhetoric, no matter how
          high-sounding, doesn’t improve your argument. How did that work out
          when you tried it in court, anyway?

          • David Farrar

            Dave, if they had wanted to say native-born, they could have simply said, “US citizen”, and not natural born US Citizen.

            Secondly, raising the qualification for higher office falls directly inline with raising the birthright requirements for higher office, not lowering them, as does the present rulings of the court.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            That’s just plain goofy, David. If they had “simply said, “US citizen”, and not natural born US Citizen,” they wouldn’t have excluded naturalized citizens, which was without doubt their intention. That is, with the sole exception of those foreign-born and naturalized citizens who had supported the American cause in the Revolution (or as you like to call it, la Révolution– you really crack me up with your foreign influences!), an exception which expired with the eventual demise of that generation of original citizens.
            And how did that “present ruling of the court” go in your case again?

          • David Farrar

            I apologize. It’s rather obvious I meant to say, “at birth”…US Citizen at birth, or a born US Citizen.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            I wouldn’t begin to presume to fill in the blanks for you, David. It would be better if you just said what you meant in the first place, wouldn’t it?
            But be that as it may, I would imagine the founders simply didn’t foresee the day when birthers would be as confused as you are about the meaning of the terms they used.

          • David Farrar

            You can run away from the truth with your tail between your legs if you want, but a natural born US Citizen acquires citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of its parents. If a person was born under one allegiance, and that allegiance was to the United States constitution, then that person would be said to be a natural born American.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            I’m not the one running away from the truth. Remind me, how did that work out for you in court?

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “a natural born US Citizen acquires citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of its parents.”

            IF the writers of the US Constitution had thought that THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO. Instead, James Madison said (along with Blackstone), that every person born on the soil of a country acquires legal allegiance to that country. Nobody at the Constitutional Convention EVER said that dual citizens were to be excluded from becoming president.

          • David Farrar

            Re: “a natural born US Citizen acquires citizenship under the cloak of allegiance of its parents.”

            There is a different between a natural born citizen and a natural born US citizen. US citizenship requires the taking of an oath to support and abide by the US Const., it isn’t simply acquired by the place of birth, as under monarchical constitutional theory.

            Re: “A person born of dual allegiances is not a naturalized US citizen.”

            But they did say it. That is what the word “natural” means.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            Re: ” it isn’t simply acquired by the place of birth..”

            Actually, both citizenship and Natural Born Citizenship are acquired by the place of birth. The difference is that some citizens are naturalized, but Natural Born Citizens are never naturalized.That is the only difference. Moreover, EVERY child born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, regardless of dual nationality, is a Natural Born US Citizen.

            And that FACT was recognized by justices in Lynch v. Clark in 1844 and by Rawle in 1829 and by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 and by ten appeals courts—some of which I will quote:

            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.”

            Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

            Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”

            In short, those rulings and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the Heritage Foundation book are right, and you are WRONG.

            Re: “But they did say it. That is what the word “natural” means.”

            Answer: NO, that is what YOU think that it means, but that is not what the US Supreme Court thought that Natural meant in Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case, and it is not what Tucker and Rawle—who knew the men who wrote the Constitution—thought that it meant. And it is not what ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention ever said that it meant, and so you are wrong. Rawle and the Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case are all correct. The term Natural Born really does come from the common law and really does refer to the place of birth, and EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders really is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

          • David Farrar

            Again, once sovereignty had been assigned to the people, citizenship was no longer a function of the state, but of the people. US citizenship has always dependent on a choice being made of the individual, to support and abide by the US Const. This marks the difference between a natural born subject and a natural born citizen.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            IF there were a difference in the parent requirement between a Natural Born Subject and a Natural Born Citizen, the writers of the US Constitution would have told us—but they didn’t.

          • David Farrar

            Since everyone alive and living in colonial American in 1776 became US citizens in July of that year (if they supported the American revolution or, at least, did not oppose it), there would not have been a need to distinguish between the citizenship of the parents until 1801 at the earliest. Moreover, the citizenship of the wife generally became that of her husband’s upon their marriage during this time. Nevertheless, since the very beginning, 43 out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed this two citizenship-parent rule to avoid dual allegiances at birth.

            By observing the two citizenship parent rule, sexual equality standards of today were recognized as early as the 1920′s, with the passage of the Marriage Act (the Cable Act), wherein the allegiance of the wife was kept after marriage. By observing the two citizenship parent rule, the problem of the growing list of resultant dual allegiances at birth this act produced was avoided.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            Re: ” 43 out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed this two citizenship-parent rule to avoid dual allegiances at birth.”

            IF that were true, and it isn’t—-Woodrow Wilson was a dual citizen at birth since his mother never gave up her British subject status, making little Woodrow a dual citizen under British law—so what? First, as I showed, it is not true. Second, since there is nothing in the constitution about dual citizens being barred from becoming president, they aren’t barred.

            Under strict construction interpretation (remember that??), you are not allowed to “read into” the constitution something that it does not say, and it does not say “no dual citizens can be president” (and the common law meaning of Natural Born doesn’t exclude dual citizens from being Natural Born either). It does not say it, so you cannot “read into” it something that it does not say.

            And under Libertarian principles (remember them???) it is not allowed to take away a right or a privilege unless the US Constitution specifically authorizes taking it away. And the US Constitution does not say that the right or privilege of a US-born foreigner (even a dual citizen at birth) is any less than the rights and privileges of US-born children of US citizens.

            As noted, the Cable Act does not prevent dual citizenship. Making the wife automatically a US citizen has no effect on the foreign law unless she specifically gives up the citizenship of that country, and Wilson’s mother didn’t. (Some authorities say that Eisenhower was a dual citizen at birth because of old German laws that made the GRANDchildren of its citizens citizens of Germany at birth).

            In addition to Wilson (and perhaps Eisenhower) having been dual citizens at birth, James Buchanan (who was after the grandfather clause) and Chester A. Arthur (about whom there is absolutely NO evidence that he hid the fact that his father was not a citizen) had a father who was not a US citizen at birth. In addition, the first presidential candidate of the Republican Party, John C. Fremont PROCLAIMED the fact that his father was not a US citizen in his campaign biography (he did not win, but that was not the reason). So, obviously, Fremont did not believe that his father not being a citizen would not have a political or constitutional effect on his becoming president—and he was right.

            Rawle was right:

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its
            territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is
            a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled
            to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that
            capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
            STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            The Wong Kim Ark ruling was right:

            (Quoting Lord Chief Justice Cockburn): “By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of
            the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in
            the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the
            children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers
            carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a
            foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories
            of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source
            of nationality.”

            And:

            “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the
            allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless
            the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

            III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

            That quite clearly says that the source of National Born Citizen comes from the common law (not Vattel), and it says that EVERY child born in the country is a Natural Born Citizen (unless the child of foreign diplomats or an invading enemy) and it says that the same rule applied in England, and in the 13 colonies, and in the early states and under the US Constitution.

            And ten appeals courts have all confirmed that the US Supreme Court said the above and that it really is a ruling on the matter of presidential eligibility, and that it says that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen (with the two exceptions noted), and the ten rulings say that Wong Kim Ark is the key ruling, the one that applies, and hence EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (yes, that includes Rubio and Jindal). And on October 1,2012, the current US supreme court turned down a birther appeal of one of those ten rulings, which had said that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen. By doing that, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court—and the other nine appeals courts–TO STAND.

          • David Farrar

            “Citizens ARE different that subjects in many ways. But do citizens require more or fewer citizen parents than subjects—and if so, why

            English subjectship is based on feudalism, jus soli, “the law of the soil”, servitude to the land and to its sovereign, perpetual allegiance, without consent. US Citizenship, on the other hand, requires a free choice being made by a free individual (sovereign), to consent to be governed. In the case of infants, that choice is inherited from its US sovereign citizen-parents.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “US Citizenship, on the other hand, requires a free choice being made by a
            free individual (sovereign), to consent to be governed.”

            You are begging the question. Why should citizens require citizen parents to be Natural Born where subjects don’t require subject parents to be Natural Born?

            And, IF citizens require more citizen parents to be Natural Born than subjects, where does it say it? (Not in Vattel, who himself never said that the leader of a country should be even a citizen, much less one with two citizen parents). And why, if that were true, didn’t the writers of the US Constitution say so???? They never did, you know, and they had two friends, Tucker and Rawle, both of whom used Natural Born Citizen to refer to the PLACE of birth, not the citizenship of the parents.

          • Dave B.

            Gosh, David, whatever happened to your flaming “Citizenship by Choice” banner? Was it consumed by your fervor for “l’Esprit de la Révolution”? “Everyone alive and living in colonial American in 1776″ did NOT become US citizens in July of that year by the mere fact of neutrality towards the Revolution. If they were foreigners in June, they remained foreigners until they were naturalized, by the law of the respective state, or once a statute was provided, under US law.

          • David Farrar

            I stand corrected…every colonial subject became a US citizen on July, 4, 1776.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            O-kay, consider the expression amended. I may just abbreviate it if I refer to it again.

          • Dave B.

            Oh, and how do you figure “sexual equality standards of today were recognized as early as the 1920′s,” when US citizen mothers couldn’t transmit citizenship to children born abroad until 1934?

          • David Farrar

            Isn’t it obvious? Requiring two US citizen-parents to produce a natural born US Citizen avoids de Vattel’s natural born definition of recognizing only the husband’s citizenship. With the recognition of the wife’s allegiance after marriage, dual allegiances, were avoided.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            David, until you birthers came along the only distinction anybody ever concerned themselves with was (aside from the question of whether persons who acquire US citizenship at birth outside the US are naturalized) between native-born and naturalized citizens. Oh, and the famous distinction exemplified in Dred Scott over whether certain classes of persons could be considered “part of the people” of the United States; a distinction which Justice Daniel defended with your favorite passage from Vattel, by the way.

            But how, exactly, did the Cable Act avoid “the problem of dual allegiances”?

          • smrstrauss

            It’s not obvious. And in fact there is no indication that the writers of the US Constitution were considering Vattel in the Natural Born Citizen requirement at all, since they did not mention him in the Federalist Papers or say that they were using his definition EVER. Nor did they even say that they were worried about dual allegiances.

          • Dave B.

            Oh, and since when have we had 44 elected presidents?

          • David Farrar

            “The difference is that some citizens are naturalized, but Natural Born Citizens are never naturalized.”

            Congratulations! You have just accepted my point: ‘”Natural Born Citizens are never naturalized.”

            I am sure you are smart enough to realized “naturalization” requires positive law, man-made law, amendments…you can call it anything you like but, “natural”, which acquires citizenship naturally through patrilineal descent.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Congratulations! You have just accepted my point: ‘”Natural Born Citizens are never naturalized.”

            Congratulations, you have just accepted MY point. Naturalization in the United States of America is a process that is administered by the US Immigration and NATURALIZATION Service, and it involves a seven-year waiting period, passing a test and swearing an oath. Everybody who is naturalized must go through that process. Children who are born on US soil NEVER go through that process, so—duh—they are not naturalized.

            People who are born outside of the USA, unless their parents were US citizens, do have to go through that process. They are known as Naturalized citizens.

            Get the difference? Naturalized = goes through the naturalization process. People born in the USA = NEVER go through the Naturalization Process.

            “Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. John Bingham of Ohio (leader on the House side on the 14th Amendment), The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

            In short, Tucker and Rawle and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling, and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and ten appeals courts, and the Heritage Foundation book and Senators Graham and Hatch are right—-and you are WRONG.

          • Dave B.

            Anything you’d like to fix there, David?

          • David Farrar

            Blackstone! It was because of Blackstone the American Revolution was fought in the first place. Blackstone is the guy who saw the American colonies as “conquered territory,” and as such, American colonists were not free
            Englishmen, requiring “consent” to be taxed.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

            He’s the guy who started all of this.

          • smrstrauss

            So YOU don’t like Blackstone. Tough. The US Supreme Court DOES, and it has the final say. Moreover, the Federalist Papers referred to the Common Law about twenty times—-and always with praise. John Jay, who first used the term Natural Born Citizen in his letter to George Washington, was a specialist in THE COMMON LAW, and the first Constitution of the State of New York, which he mainly wrote, says that the COMMON LAW will be the law of New York state unless and until a New York statute changes it.

            There is, BTW, absolutely no evidence whatever that the writers of the US Constitution had switched away from the common law meaning of Natural Born to some other meaning, and if they had done so, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US.

          • David Farrar

            So you didn’t read Nash’s “How The Ring of Power and a Traitor Shaped Presidential Eligibility”?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss
          • David Farrar
          • smrstrauss

            Can you get that “ring of power” toasted and with cream cheese?

            Nash’s OPINION is just that, the opinion of one [nutty] person. Like you, Nash is wrong, and Tucker and Rawle and the Lynch v. Clarke ruling and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and the Heritage Foundation book and the Congressional Research service and the US Congress—which confirmed Obama’s election twice UNANIMOUSLY (and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul)—-are right—and you and Nash are wrong.

          • David Farrar

            You are simply looking at the names, not what they say — their construct.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            David, do you think substantially modifying your comments after I’ve replied to them is any way to carry on an honest dialogue? Oh, wait a minute, you’re a birther– you don’t know what an honest dialogue is.
            Putting that aside, your original response was goofy enough– what you’ve added on to it is downright absurd. You presume to provide your own definition of naturalization, when the Supreme Court has already provided a Constitutional definition, and Congress a statutory one.
            According to Justice Gray, writing in US v. Wong Kim Ark (as cited to time and again in subsequent opinions),
            “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only
            become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case
            of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress,
            exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens,
            as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children
            of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens
            by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions
            of the naturalization acts.”
            Justice Gray goes on to cite to Chief Justice Marshall, a veteran of the Revolution and personal friend of George Washington:
            “The power of naturalization, vested in congress by the constitution, is a
            power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. ‘A
            naturalized citizen,’ said Chief Justice Marshall, ‘becomes a member of
            the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and
            standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native.’”
            Or, as Justice Black distilled it in his dissent in Rogers v. Bellei,
            “The Court in Wong Kim Ark thus stated a broad and comprehensive
            definition of naturalization. As shown in Wong Kim Ark, naturalization
            when used in its constitutional sense is a generic term describing and
            including within its meaning all those modes of acquiring American
            citizenship other than birth in this country.”
            That this was expressed in a dissenting opinion is unimportant; the majority opinion depends upon that same Constitutional understanding of naturalization.
            The sole distinction between naturalized and native citizens (those who acquire US citizenship by birth in the United States), expressed time and again by the Supreme Court, is that the native citizen is eligible for the Presidency; the naturalized citizen is not. And “naturalized” simply doesn’t mean what you claim it does.
            For purposes of statute, the longstanding definition of “naturalization” as provided by Congress is “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth by any means whatsoever.”
            And neither understanding agrees with your goofy, idiosyncratic definition. Under YOUR definition, those foreign influences you seem to be so enamored of would prevail– a person born in the United States, of two parents who are US citizens, can also be the citizen of another state, if that state’s laws provide for it. Where does that leave you and your “natural law” nonsense?

          • David Farrar

            You do know there is a difference between being born a natural citizen of a united state and being born a natural United States citizen: don’t you?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            Oh, horsefeathers. This “free choice to support and abide by its terms” amounts to what, “Love it or leave it”? Those of us who were born US citizens can choose to renounce that citizenship, but we didn’t have any choice about acquiring it in the first place. If you’ve actually got some lucid point hiding in there somewhere, how about giving it a little oxygen? You’ve smothered it under all that “natural” stuff you’re so full of.

          • smrstrauss

            Well said, and EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born US Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders. Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, used the term Natural Born Citizen exactly the same way that Natural Born Subject had been used in the common law:

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

          • David Farrar

            I am not surprised. Rawle was from a family of loyalist antenati out of Philadelphia, who spent part of the war years in England, studying law, returning to the United States shortly after the war had ended, although before the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty was signed later that year and became a lawyer.

            On the other hand, Dr. David Ramsey’s American revolutionary war experience is quite different. He was, from 1776 to 1783, a member of the South Carolina legislature. When Charleston was threatened by the British in 1780, he served with the South Carolina militia as a field surgeon. After the city was captured in 1780, Ramsay was imprisoned for nearly a year at St. Augustine, Florida, until he was exchanged. From 1782 to 1786 he served in the Continental Congress. In the absence of John Hancock, Ramsay served as chairman of Congress, from November 23, 1785 to May 12, 1786. In the 1790s he served three terms in the South Carolina State Senate, and was president of that body.

            Even in his own day, Ramsay was better known as a historian and author than as a politician. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights acquired by being personally involved in the events of the American Revolution.*

            Now tell me, from which perspective would you suppose would come the best reflection of l’Esprit de la Révolution as articulated by the Declaration of Independence?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar
            *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_(historian)

          • ellen

            Re Ramsay vs Rawle and which one to chose. It is best to chose the one who was appointed a district attorney by GEORGE WASHINGTON, of course, and that one was Rawle. He was a Quaker, by the way, which explains why he did not fight in the Revolution.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rawle

            But Rawle is by no means alone. Both Rawle and Tucker use the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that it is used in THE COMMON LAW, and the Lynch v. Clarke court ruling does too.

            Moreover, NO member of the Constitutional Convention ever used the term Natural Born Citizen (or even just Natural Born) to refer to parents. Not one, and even Vattel does not say that the leader of a country should have two citizen parents or even one or even be a citizen.

            In short, there is NO evidence that the writers of the US Constitution used anything other than THE COMMON LAW (which they were familiar with as lawyers) as the definition of Natural Born in Natural Born Citizen, and if they had changed the parent requirement from NO citizen parents, which is the rule in the common law for children born in the country, two TWO citizen parents (or even one)—-they surely would have told us, and they did not say a word. BTW, John Jay, who first used the term “Natural Born Citizen” in his letter to George Washington, was a specialist in THE COMMON LAW. So, he surely would have told Washington if he was using the term in any way other than than in THE COMMON LAW—-and he didn’t.

          • David Farrar

            I just presented you with testimony of a true supporter of the American Revolution as opposed to some English, Tory, English sympathizer who ran away from the ideals that revolution presented him, only to slip back again after the fighting had ended to become some kind of spokesman for those very ideals of consent?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            Not one of the writers of the US Constitution ever said that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

            The Heritage Foundation is not a “Tory, English sympathizer.”

            “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 neither was Rawle, who was appointed a district attorney by GEORGE WASHINGTON:

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

            In any case, the legal decision on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was made by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and in its ruling (six to two with one justice not voting) it said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders.

          • David Farrar

            A natural born citizen is a person who gains citizenship naturally by patrilineal descent*.

            You should read some of Nash’s material on this subject?

            ex animo

            davidfarrar
            *How The Ring of Power and a Traitor Shaped Presidential Eligibility

          • smrstrauss

            So you and Nash say, but that is not what the US Supreme Court ruled, and it has the final say. It said in the Wong Kim Ark case that every single child born on US soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders, is a Natural Born US citizen, and that is what Tucker and Rawle and Bingham and Trumbull and the Heritage Foundation book all say too.

          • David Farrar

            I think, We, the People, have the final say; don’t you?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            No question we the people do have the final say. That is what the Constitution calls for. It gives us the right to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT overturning the rulings of the US Supreme Court. But that requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the US Congress, and THREE-QUARTERS OF THE STATES. Good luck.

          • David Farrar

            Consent to the laws that governed his conduct was also the recognized “right” of free Englishman as well, you know,* a right acquired during England’s “Glorious Revolutionary” period.

            Moreover, the lack of consent to be taxed was the principle cause of the Boston Tea Party via the Stamp tax…”No taxation without Representation” becoming their battle cry. Under the republican constitutional theory, where sovereignty was assigned to the people, it would require individual consent to be governed to be citizens.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar
            * PP 115, last sentence http://books.google.com/books?id=fDsHKydL67kC&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=Elizabeth+K.+Bauer+American+history&source=bl&ots=JJJ3vIX4sb&sig=MaKP5rZ3QjWQPpH420lTJeR8y50&hl=en&sa=X&ei=aFQTU6fzCITJkAfE4oBw&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=citizen&f=false

          • Dave B.

            I presume a point is forming intentions of making its tentative way to the surface. Could you help it along a bit?

          • David Farrar

            Well, the point is “consent” of the governed.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            Which has…what, exactly, to do with acquisition of citizenship by birth in the United States?

          • David Farrar

            Under the republican constitutional theory, where sovereignty is assigned to the people, only sovereign parents, who have consented to be governed (i.e., US citizens), can extend their allegiance and ‘preform the duties of a citizen’* for a sovereign citizen under the age of majority.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar
            *Duties of a citizen: pay taxes, jury duty, military draft

          • Dave B.

            Huh. Did you ever hear that story where the little boy asks his father “What’s the difference between theory and fact?”

          • David Farrar

            Unless the parents are US citizens, the presumption that the child will be brought up to support and abide by the US Const, cannot be made. Only sovereigns who have a pledge to support and abide by the US Const. can transfer that pledge…and perform the duties that that pledge requires of the citizen.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            So I guess you haven’t heard the story, It involves the little boy’s sister, his mother, two million dollars, the neighbor and the theoretical and factual conclusions from the juxtaposition of those factors. What’s this “pledge” you’re talking about?
            And do you really, really, really want to open yourself to the scorn and derision that “sovereign” nonsense will bring down on you?

          • David Farrar

            Wasn’t it John Jay who observed we were all sovereigns, “sovereigns without subjects?” Do you think John Jay should be scorned for being full of that nonsense as well?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            Not hardly; but you, David, are no John Jay.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Unless the parents are US citizens, the presumption that the child will be brought up to support and abide by the US Const, cannot be made…”

            So YOU think, but Madison and the others believed that everyone born on US soil, EVERYONE (except for the children of foreign diplomats and, at at the time, slaves and Indians) had allegiance to the USA, and only to the USA. And, guess what, the fact that millions of Americans whose parents were foreigners and had not been naturalized before their children were born fought and died loyally in two world wars proves that the writers of the Constitution were right. Allegiance, and Natural Born status go together, and every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats has both allegiance to the USA and Natural Born Citizen status.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “Under the republican constitutional theory…”

            That is in fact YOUR theory of a theory. A theory is not a law, and your theory of the theory is wrong. Blatantly wrong, starkly wrong. That’s because under the real Republican theory of government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…” And that means, that unless they told us to the contrary—and they didn’t—that the US-born children of foreigners were created equal to the US-born children of US citizens.

          • smrstrauss

            That is because it is right to use English law and Blackstone’s commentaries. There isn’t a word in the Federalist Papers or in the writings of ANY of the men who were at the Constitutional Convention (who were mainly lawyers and justices, familiar with the common law) that they were using any other meaning than in the COMMON LAW.

            Hence, the Heritage Foundation book on the 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.]

            And you are wrong.

          • David Farrar

            Yes, and under longstanding English common-law principles, we shouldn’t have been able to sack good, old King George III, and established an independent Republic until 1783, but we did.

            The good, old, longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli is nothing more than Blackstone’s Commentaries, based on the old Coken concept of perpetual allegiances at birth, bestowed by a sovereign, under monarchical constitutional theory, without consent of the subject.

            While I am sure the founders and framers of the US Const., were perfectly conversant in the principles of English common-law, they would have also seen similarities between themselves and the Lockean-liberalism that had taken place in England with William and Mary’s reign and the Glorious Revolution.

            In all honesty, these were revolutionary times, what set of law principles would you think the founders and framers of the US Const. had most on their minds that best represented l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence: Blackstone’s Commentaries, based on the perpetual allegiances at birth or Lock’s consent-based citizenship?

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • smrstrauss

            John Jay, the first chief justice of the USA and a American revolutionary, wrote the first constitution of the state of New York in 1777, and it in the good old common law was made the official law of the state of New York unless and until that law was specifically changed by the state of New York.

            The Federalist Papers does not refer to Vattel at all, but it mentions the common law about twenty times, and always with PRAISE.

            The Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court are both right; the term Natural Born Citizen really does come from THE COMMON LAW—–and you are wrong.

            Re: “a mystery I have yet to solve.”

            Answer: Too bad for you. You’re wrong. You wander in the wilderness of your delusion. You think that because you have some loony idea that the writers of the Constitution were wide-eyed radicals who wanted to change everything that they did not use the definition of the Common Law. Well, your loony theory is not agreed with by Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, and it is not agreed with by the US Supreme Court. Too bad for you.

            BTW, the nutty two-parent theory was not able to change a single vote among the US electors in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama got 356 votes in the general election of 2008, and he received the votes of 356 electors. Obama received 332 votes in the general election of 2012, and he received the votes of 332 electors. The US Congress confirmed Obama’s election unanimously twice.

            You have the right to DREAM that your nutty theory is really the law—but you cannot convince any rational person. The way that you keep on raving is really rather sad.

          • David Farrar

            But it was John Jay, sitting as the first chief justice of the US Supreme Court, that observed in 1789, “We are all sovereigns now, sovereigns without subjects”.

            As sovereigns then, we are not subjects by birth, but citizens by choice.

            ex animo
            davidfarrar

          • Dave B.

            So…we choose to become citizens at birth, if our parents are citizens, but not if they are aliens? David, you continue to display unplumbed depths. If I am born a citizen because of who my parents are, how is that more a matter of choice for me than if I become a citizen because of where I was born?
            I’m going to do you a little favor, David, and suggest you ponder the difference between the words “permanent” and “perpetual,” and apply your conclusions about that to this matter of how we are “citizens by choice.” Is it what we become at birth, or what we remain to be, that is a matter of choice?

          • smrstrauss

            Sovereigns or not, he did not say that the USA had switched away from THE COMMON LAW.

            As sovereigns we chose to keep the common law the law until it was changed. That is all. And it is loony to think that John Jay or the members of the Constitutional Convention had switched from the common law to something else WITHOUT TELLING US.

            If we are born in the USA we are citizens by place, not by choice. Only those who came here and were naturalized are citizens by choice.

            Getting back to the use of the common law. It is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise. There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that said that the USA had switched away from the common law—and they would have said so, and to what we switched, IF we had switched.

            And John Jay wrote the first Constitution of the State of New York, and it said:

            ” And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England
            and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.” (By the way, the date the 19th of April 1775 is the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord.)

            No member of the Constitutional Convention ever said that Vattel or some concept of Natural Law was the source of the term Natural Born Citizen, and Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, used the term exactly the same as it was used in the common law.

            “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH
            NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

            “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

  • David Farrar

    I have recently been reading over some of Dr. David Ramsey material (c.1789) regarding (US)* citizenship. While he has been interpreted by both sides of the argument, the statement below makes that argument, IMHO, indisputably clear:

    “The (US) citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of (US) citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.”

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * My emphasis

    • Dave B.

      And how did that work out for Dr. Ramsey, David?

    • smrstrauss

      That was RAMSEY’s opinion: Here is Rawle’s:

      “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

      Here is the US Supreme Court’s opinion:

      “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

      III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.’

Sign In

Forgot password?

Or

Subscribe

Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...