It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by de Thor
 

Dear de Thor,

Please forgive me. I did listen but perhaps I'm not clever enough to understand. (See my signature)

The Supreme Court has said there is a difference between a natural born citizen and some one born in the US.


Link to the case?


Sure, OK.
www.law.cornell.edu...


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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.


The President's legal team didn't bother to make the argument you're suggesting. Afraid it would lose?


Perhaps they assumed it was so blatantly obvious he was a citizen they didn't want to waste months on a pointless court case.
And so now they face the possibility of losing by default. For a lawyer to ignore a hearing on the assumption that they will win even if they don't show up is negligence that should lead to discipline, if not disbarment.

The exception you give about a diplomat not being subject to US jurisdiction, might also apply to Obama's dad.


Why would that exception ever apply to Obama's dad?
Because the diplomat is not a citizen of the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction, and Obama's dad was not a citizen of the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction.

Your Iran example is wrong. The 14 year requirement is in addition to the other requirements, not instead of.


Requirements to become president:
-A natural born citizen OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (Check)
-Must be 35 years old (Check)
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years (Check)

My example using Iran is correct.


In my ignorance I still don't see it. You, yourself posted:

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 notice "parents," more than one? Obama only had one citizen parent.

Still looks incorrect to me, but I'd be happy to listen. I suspect that I could learn a lot from you. I'll keep listening.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


1.) The court case you linked to has nothing to do with citizen vs natural born citizen. That case was about woman's suffrage. Adding onto your quote (emphasis mine):


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 [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.

That case never aimed to solve the citizen vs natural born citizen issue and it was barely touched upon.

2.) I'm not in the Obama administration so I don't know what angle they're taking with the case in Georgia.

3.) Obama's dad was not a diplomat, therefore rendering that portion of the requirement to be a natural born citizen irrelevant.

4.) Once again, my example using Iran is correct. I'm not talking about Obama in the example. I'm suggesting that in the future it would be possible for someone who was born and raised in Iran to be President of the United States.
edit on 29-1-2012 by de Thor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by de Thor
 

Dear de Thor,

Thank you for your patience with me. Now it's getting late and I'm a little punchy. Maybe we can finish tomorrow?

Starting with 1.) May I rephrase what the court said? Remember they're bringing up the issue in the opinion, so we can't just toss it aside. My paraphrase:

The constitution doesn't define "natural-born citizen," but in the law as it existed when the Constitution was written everybody agreed that to be a "natural-born citizen" you had to be born in the country to two citizen parents. Some people have even raised doubts by saying the parent's citizenship doesn't matter. There are doubts about this group, but we're certain about the born in the country to two citizen parent definition. We're not even going to bother ruling on whether you can also be natural born without two citizen parents. This case doesn't need it.

So you see the court is saying that born in the US to two citizen parents makes you a natural born citizen, but if they're not citizens, then you may not be natural born. We're certainly not going to say that you are.

I think the only fair conclusion is that Obama may or may not be eligible for the ballot, but there's nothing in the law today that says he is. Maybe the Supreme Court will issue a new ruling before election time, but right now. . .

Under either of those two tests, you have to be born in the US. Being born in Iran makes you inelligible. You're a citizen, but not natural-born. (Until the Supreme Court changes the rules.)

Sorry, I really enjoy talking with you, but I have to run. Have a wonderful night.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Currently, no precedent has been set regarding citizen vs natural born citizen. Therefore we turn to the U.S. Code which outlines very clearly what a natural born citizen is. My example on Iran is correct as well as my statement that Obama is eligible for office.

In fact, the Supreme Court rejected a case that would deal with the very issue we are discussing. I think that says something about how the Supreme Court views this topic.

A list of presidents who had at least one parent not born in the United States:
James Buchanan
Andrew Johnson
Chester A. Arthur
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover

Thoughts?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by de Thor

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, the requirements are:
-A natural born citizen
-A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
-Must be 35 years old
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years


I think you are reading it wrong, there is a comma after 'or a Citizen of the United States'.

So you need to be 'a Citizen of the United States' or 'a natural born citizen', at the time of the 'adoption' of this Constitution. (yes it says this constitution not the constitution as you wrote above, referring to itself not the constitution as a whole) At the time of the 'adoption' of this Constitution means any time it is used and applied, not when the constitution was written. So you only have to be 'a Citizen of the United States', no matter where your parents or you were born.

I didn't go to school in the US so I have never even read the constitution but that is my take on it, if I'm wrong be sure ya'll let be know now haha.


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



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by de Thor

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So, the requirements are:
-A natural born citizen
-A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
-Must be 35 years old
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years


I think you are reading it wrong, there is a comma after 'or a Citizen of the United States'.

So you need to be 'a Citizen of the United States' or 'a natural born citizen', at the time of the 'adoption' of this Constitution. (yes it says this constitution not the constitution as you wrote above, referring to itself not the constitution as a whole) At the time of the 'adoption' of this Constitution means any time it is used and applied, not when the constitution was written. So you only have to be 'a Citizen of the United States', no matter where your parents or you were born.

I didn't go to school in the US so I have never even read the constitution but that is my take on it, if I'm wrong be sure ya'll let be know now haha.


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


We are both correct, but I agree, my format does invite confusion. What I should have done was:

So, the requirements are:
-A natural born citizen OR A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
-Must be 35 years old
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years

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



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by de Thor
 

Hey, de Thor,

I found something that helps your case. It's 8 USC 1405.

§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
(Emphasis added)

www.law.cornell.edu...

You know, after playing with this for a while, what I come up with is that Georgia will decide, based on Obama's failure to appear, that he is not eligible for the ballot. Then Obama will appeal as quick as he can up to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that Georgia is depriving him of his right to run. The Supremes will then probably overrule, or "clarify" their previous decision and let Obama run because the country will be destroyed by riots otherwise. Ugly, but that's my guess. I wish it would be decided based on the law

The interesting question for me is the calendar. The Georgia primary can be no later than the second Tuesday in June. That's 4 1/2 months from now. Can they get it through the Supremes in time?

de Thor, it is a joy talking with you. I hope to do it many more times.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by de Thor
 

Hey, de Thor,

I found something that helps your case. It's 8 USC 1405.

§ 1405. Persons born in Hawaii
A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
(Emphasis added)

www.law.cornell.edu...

You know, after playing with this for a while, what I come up with is that Georgia will decide, based on Obama's failure to appear, that he is not eligible for the ballot. Then Obama will appeal as quick as he can up to the Supreme Court, on the grounds that Georgia is depriving him of his right to run. The Supremes will then probably overrule, or "clarify" their previous decision and let Obama run because the country will be destroyed by riots otherwise. Ugly, but that's my guess. I wish it would be decided based on the law

The interesting question for me is the calendar. The Georgia primary can be no later than the second Tuesday in June. That's 4 1/2 months from now. Can they get it through the Supremes in time?

de Thor, it is a joy talking with you. I hope to do it many more times.

With respect,
Charles1952




I found a little snippet on the Huffington Post written by Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:



At any rate, the final decision is Kemp's. Regardless of what Malihi recommends, Kemp does not want to become the Republican secretary of state who ruled Barack Obama off the ballot in Georgia. Becoming a birther hero would not begin to compensate for the lasting infamy such a step would bring him, especially because such a ruling would be challenged in state or federal court and almost immediately overturned on any number of reasons. Kemp would then look like a fool and put an end to any further political ambitions he might have. I doubt that’s the course he will choose to take.


Basically, the court in Georgia can only make a suggestion as to whether Obama should be on the ballot. The decision falls to Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp. It comes down to whether or not Kemp wants to make a name for himself or not. I think we can all agree certain arms will be twisted and Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia, regardless of what the court finds.

If Kemp decides to remove him from the ballot, it will be one of most controversial political happenings in a very long time.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Fast and Furious proves that the Justice Dept and those in power can't be trusted. Not to mention the 911 fiasco...

Okay so what makes you think that Congress was on the up and up and did there job to vet the president's credentials.

I think they failed.

I think the BC is fake.

As for this thread Note....it's based on the BC being real which I believe it's not.

So I hope Kemp has the balls to rock the boat baby!!!


Obama obivously has something to hide or this issue would have been resolved along time ago.

It's so funny to hear so many people claim the government is on the up and up and would never lie, cheat, steal or kill. Most people I grew up with never trusted the government even if they had family in the military or the police and this still rings true today. So where did yall find all this Kumbyay for our government, military and police. I grew up during the Vetnam War. With all the protesters and War footage on TV and the boring azz news casters.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by relocator
 



Fast and Furious proves that the Justice Dept and those in power can't be trusted.
Agreed


Okay so what makes you think that Congress was on the up and up and did there job to vet the president's credentials. I think they failed.
It's not Congress' job to pass on the qualifications. It's up to the states, the parties, the people, and the free press.


I think the BC is fake. As for this thread Note....it's based on the BC being real which I believe it's not.
It may be fake, but the lawyers bringing this case argued that, for this one case, they would agree that Obama was born in Hawaii. That let's them focus on the issue they wanted to focus on.


So I hope Kemp has the balls to rock the boat baby!!!
HEY!! de THOR!! Listening? This is what made me sad about de Thor's last post. Nothing he wrote, but the idea in the article that, of course Kemp was going to bow to pressure. He wants to keep his career, doesn't he? I know politicians can be bought, but I hate being reminded of it.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   


It was not the Supreme Court that vetted Obama, not the state courts, not the election commissions, not the attorneys general, not the legislature, not the DNC and not the Hawaii Office of Vital Statistics. Just who did vet Barack Obama? You guessed it, the internet!

The document Obama and the DNC offered which is now alleged to be fraudulent was posted only to the internet. The Daily Kos may be the high holy blog spot for space mountain type ego-centric wordsmithing, foul language and liberal blather but it is not the Supreme Court. Snopes and Factcheck are pretty close neighbors to the Kos. Regardless of who owns these sites they are merely more of the same; the internet!

When the msm, the DNC or anyone else tries to portray the Obama documentation activists as a group of conspiracy enthusiasts limited to the undisciplined ravings of the internet it is truly the pot calling the kettle black.



Source




Until Obama offers more than an internet vetting of his documents those who are now forced to air their grievances and questions only on the web should not be the least bit dismayed. They are doing no better or worse than Barack Obama even without the msm and an entourage of entranced worshippers.


I found good comments here



Sadly, all the States do is notarize the signature of the filer. That's why States are now passing their own vetting laws. Arizona's was not very good, so Gov Brewer wisely chose not to sign it, but there are about 10 others working on similar. It would take very few states keeping pseudo-prez off the ballot to kill all chances of America having to put up with him again. Unbelievable that Congress has done nothing!


Source
edit on 30-1-2012 by relocator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by de Thor
We are both correct, but I agree, my format does invite confusion. What I should have done was:

So, the requirements are:
-A natural born citizen OR A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
-Must be 35 years old
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years

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


That is still wrong, it says THIS constitution not THE constitution.

It's not irrelevant, 'adoption' means whenever that constitution is used and applied, at any time, today or tomorrow. Adoption as another word for 'use' in this context. Legal jargon is always weird.

So it doesn't mean, A natural born citizen OR A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it really simply means is A natural born citizen OR A citizen 'at the time they apply this rule'. The meaning of 'at the time of the adoption of the Constitution' is what is confusing the issue I think.

Either that or the author of this constitution didn't know English grammar very well, and put a comma where it shouldn't have been.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I believe this Source below is a good place to start, though it's really not going to change anything until the people demand answers from those in power.


sOURCE


There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," or whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth" and citizens "by birth" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[9] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, he is a citizen "by law" and is therefore "naturalized."[10] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[11] However, this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for citizenship at birth.[12]


Source

Simply put I don't believe he's eligible to be President. No proof either way......just going with my gut feeling.
edit on 30-1-2012 by relocator because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by de Thor
We are both correct, but I agree, my format does invite confusion. What I should have done was:

So, the requirements are:
-A natural born citizen OR A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution
-Must be 35 years old
-Must have lived in the United States for 14 years

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


That is still wrong, it says THIS constitution not THE constitution.

It's not irrelevant, 'adoption' means whenever that constitution is used and applied, at any time, today or tomorrow. Adoption as another word for 'use' in this context. Legal jargon is always weird.

So it doesn't mean, A natural born citizen OR A citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, it really simply means is A natural born citizen OR A citizen 'at the time they apply this rule'. The meaning of 'at the time of the adoption of the Constitution' is what is confusing the issue I think.

Either that or the author of this constitution didn't know English grammar very well, and put a comma where it shouldn't have been.


For someone who admitted earlier that he had never actually read the Constitution, you sure do know quite a bit about it. You are basing your whole argument off "this", "adoption", and a comma. I'm basing mine off scholarly and Supreme Court interpretations, none of which have ever corroborated any portion of your argument.

A "citizen" could be someone who had immigrated from another country and gained citizenship. They are not allowed to become president. This simple fact renders your whole argument obsolete.

And I find your swipe at the Founding Fathers in poor taste. For someone as smart as yourself you should know that languages and writing styles evolve throughout time, especially over the course of 200 years.

edit on 30-1-2012 by de Thor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   

HEY!! de THOR!! Listening? This is what made me sad about de Thor's last post. Nothing he wrote, but the idea in the article that, of course Kemp was going to bow to pressure. He wants to keep his career, doesn't he? I know politicians can be bought, but I hate being reminded of it.


Haha yes, I'm listening. Suppose Kemp did remove Obama from the ballot.

What would you expect to happen in terms of reaction from the American public?
Would the public have a more negative reaction towards Obama or the lawyers who pushed the case?
What do you believe would be the political ramifications, if any?
Do you think other states would follow Georgia's lead?



EDIT TO ADD:

In the most extreme case, if Kemp did remove Obama from the ballot, it could start a civil war. Some states would follow Georgia, others wouldn't, then BOOM we have a huge divide in our country. But this is the most absolute extreme situation that I could think of and it's not at all likely.
edit on 30-1-2012 by de Thor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by de Thor
For someone who admitted earlier that he had never actually read the Constitution, you sure do know quite a bit about it. You are basing your whole argument off "this", "adoption", and a comma. I'm basing mine off scholarly and Supreme Court interpretations, none of which have ever corroborated any portion of your argument.


Damn I had a whole reply written and lost it.

I only know what I've seen in this thread. I guess I learn fast eh? Grammar makes a huge difference and no that has not changed. Where is the official statement that says it's changed? If that constitution is still relevant then the way it is written is still relevant.


A "citizen" could be someone who had immigrated from another country and gained citizenship. They are not allowed to become president. This simple fact renders your whole argument obsolete.


Well it took me 2 minutes to find that only 'naturalized citizens' can not be president. Someone who is a citizen from their parents, regardless of where they are born are American citizens. I know this because I was born and raised in the UK, my farther was American, me and my brothers and sisters are US citizens. I didn't have to do anything other than prove my farthers birth place, and I was issued a US passport. I was not naturalized. No where does it say I am anything but a natural born US citizen.


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...


And I find your swipe at the Founding Fathers in poor taste. For someone as smart as yourself you should know that languages and writing styles evolve throughout time, especially over the course of 200 years.


What swipe, you Americans are so sensitive? It was more of a swipe at the OP's understanding. Again reading comprehension is important mate.

BTW I have no interest in whether Obama is eligible or not, I don't care either way.


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



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Seriously? An official statement as to how the English language has evolved?

Read these and tell me there isn't a difference:
Shakespeare->Federalist Papers->Some modern scholarly work->internet speak



As for the rest of your argument, I'm not even sure what you're arguing. This portion of your post leads me to believe you agree with me:


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.


But like I said, I have no idea what you're getting at?

edit on 30-1-2012 by de Thor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Remember when they tried to say that the term natural born citizen had been scrubbed from all online dictionaries? www.abovetopsecret.com...


Sigh...

Also this line from your OP (not bolded) applies too no?


-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)

edit on 1/30/2012 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by de Thor
reply to post by ANOK
 


Seriously? An official statement as to how the English language has evolved?

Read these and tell me there isn't a difference:
Shakespeare->Federalist Papers->Some modern scholarly work->internet speak


But once again if the constitution is still relevant, then the language and grammar used is still relevant.
You can't pretend the grammar has changed just to believe it says something it doesn't. If it has changed the text would have changed also, because as it stands it is not saying what you think it is. You are simply ignoring the comma to believe in a conspiracy.

That makes no sense at all.


As for the rest of your argument, I'm not even sure what you're arguing. This portion of your post leads me to believe you agree with me:


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?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
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



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join