As I have said many times now, in this thread and others, there has never been a legal definition of what "natural born", in the context of the US Constitution, means. It doesn't exist. There are only laws that define who shall be nationals, citizens, and naturalized citizens. None that say who shall be "natural born" citizens; at least not anymore.
In common usage, there exists more than one meaning that is associated with the term "natural born". And none of the definitions are legally binding.
Three examples from the article that express how the term's meaning has evolved over time. Here, the first interpretation focuses on loyalty to the US by a citizen who would be POTUS (Of course birth doesn't guarantee loyalty to anything, but that's for another discussion.):
1.
But is John McCain a natural born citizen? The Constitution does not define the term further, and legal scholars say the notes of the Constitution's drafters shed little light on what they meant. It seems clear only that the founders wanted to make certain that whoever was president would be loyal to the U.S. alone and not to some other country. But the term "natural born citizen," many scholars say, was not in common use at the time the Constitution was written.www.msnbc.msn.com...
Another interesting one. A law existed in the year 1790 that defined, and at one time guaranteed "natural born" status to those born outside the US:
2.
Sen. McCain's supporters draw some comfort from a law passed in 1790 by the first Congress. It provided that the children of US citizens born outside the US "shall be considered as natural born citizens." The law is no longer in effect, but it provides some guidance on what the founders had in mind at the time of the Constitution.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
Why was this law of 1790 revoked? A close reading of the law reveals that it was a race based law. That any alien that might qualify for natural born status has to be "a free white person". So that might have something to do with the law eventually being annulled. And so a law that clearly defined who shall be natural born citizens has not been seen since. First Congress. Sess. II. Ch. 4. 1790. (Page Image 103 - 104)
The question has to be asked: In the context of the US Constitution, was "natural born" also a reference to free Whites as defined in the 1790 law? Again, the Constitution does not define the term "natural born", so we may never know the answer to that question.
Yet another definition follows. This one completely disregards the ideas of loyalty and that one has to be born within US borders to be considered "natural born". Rather focuses on natural born citizenship being the natural result of those born to "parents" who are citizens of the US. As if to say that law has nothing to do with one becoming a citizen of the US, but rather birth to US "parents" does. (Does birth to "parents" refer to one parent and two parents, or only two parents being US citizens? Hard to tell.)
3.
Sen. McCain has the support of Ted Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. "The plain meaning of 'natural born citizen' includes persons who become citizens of this nation 'naturally,' that is, by virtue of their birth to parents who are citizens, particularly when the birth takes place on territory occupied and controlled by the United States, in Senator McCain's case, a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone," Olson says in a statement. But that is by no means a universally held view.www.msnbc.msn.com...
Each attempted definition brings with it some difference that make it incompatible with other understandings of what "natural born" means in the context of the Constitution. And each bears with it a crippling caveat. Those caveats are underlined in each of the previously cited references. The first is the claim that "natural born" was not a term that was in common usage at the time the Constitution was written. If the authors were not sure what "natural born" means, how can we be sure? They didn't even include a legally binding definition! The second definition bears the caveat of it being a law and definition that is no longer in effect; presumably for good reason. The third definition's caveat is that it is not universal in meaning.
Another interesting fact is, the United States has never held sovereignty over the Canal Zone. This fact muddies the waters when trying to come to an understanding that those born in the Canal Zone, like Senator McCain was are natural born citizens. Mainly because some US military installations are not under the jurisdiction of the United States; which the 14th Amendment of the Constitution addresses:
...many legal scholars say the Canal Zone never was sovereign U.S. territory. In a February 1978 speech to the nation on the Panama Canal Treaty, heavily vetted by government lawyers, President Carter said, "We have never had sovereignty over it. We have only had the right to use it. The US Supreme Court and previous American presidents have repeatedly acknowledged the sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone."www.msnbc.msn.com...
So is John McCain a natural born citizen? Still a mystery. Mainly because no law replaced the 1790 law that defined the term "natural born".
Is Senator Barack Obama a natural born citizen? Was he a natural born citizen, who later became naturalized? Still a mystery. Mainly because some claim that he was born in Kenya. And because no law replaced the 1790 law that defined the term "natural born".
Both Senators, if all documents are in proper order, are citizens of the US under US CODE: Title 8, 1401 and 1403. The problem is that nothing indicates that they shall be natural born citizens. Only assumptions have been made about that issue..
Has the Supreme Court ever resolved the issue? Nope. But it did make mention of "natural born" at least once:
In 1964, the Supreme Court seemed to say, without deciding, that "natural born" meant born inside the United States. In an opinion on an unrelated issue, the court observed, "The rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President." But that language is not legally binding, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on what "natural born" means.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
SCOTUS: Schneider v. Rusk (No. 368)
So why this post? To show that if Obama is able to prove that he is a citizen of the US, there will still be the question of whether he has natural born status, thereby satisfying his eligibility to become POTUS.
Someone like Obama who as a child never renounced his US citizenship, should have been able to renew citizenship without taking on naturalized status. Which would mean that both Obama and McCain would share the same kind of citizenship. They are both citizens, but not naturalized citizens.
If this case goes to Supreme Court of the United States and a ruling is made, the outcome could affect the candidacy of both McCain and Obama. And future would-be presidents.
So while Berg wants to know the truth about Obama's eligibility, he has opened a Pandora's box of possibility. It is possible that he may cost Obama his campaign and a chance at being president. In the long run, though, if he intends to go the distance to SCOTUS, if necessary, he may cost John McCain his campaign and chance at the presidency as well.
Many folks have said that if only Obama would just show his long form birth certificate, then no harm done if it says that he was born in Hawaii. That if only Berg could see that document, things would be settled. Well, the fact of the matter is that Berg doesn't have the authority to determine who is eligible to be POTUS. Judges and courts may have a hard time justifying that they do have authority, if they choose to do such a thing. What laws will back up their decision?
Cautiously, it seems like judges and courts only have authority to determine who is NOT eligible to be POTUS. And it would seem that cases where naturalized citizenship would be a factor would be the most clear cut.
Some folks may blame Obama for a possible future constitutional crisis, other may blame Berg, but the truth is that the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of those who vaguely propositioned "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President", and then signed it into law.
thanks for going on and in this thread providing us with nothing but hearsay, rightwing slanted
or unofficial sources and little technicalities. Oh yes and ofcourse youv been taking burgs word for it.... blinded by partisanship....
thats what happens when you fill lady liberty with a bunch of ignorance and misjudgement, she gets depressed..
