Thursday, March 31, 2011

Donald Trump Is a “Natural Born Citizen” But Putative President Barack Obama Is Not

Donald Trump Is a “Natural Born Citizen” But Putative President Barack Obama Is Not

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 31, 2011

Based on the information that has so far been provided to the public, I conclude that Donald Trump is an Article II "natural born Citizen" but Barack Obama is not.

The Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“Vattel”), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the "natural born Citizen" clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation's values and safety at heart. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution that anyone who was a “citizen of the United States” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was eligible to be President. But for anyone born thereafter, they built in extra protection for the nation by requiring that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be a “natural born Citizen.”

While a “citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Vattel, Sections 212-217. Here are some supporting sources, and there are more, for this definition:

(1) Founder historian, David Ramsay, who in his A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) told us that after July 4, 1776, birthright citizenship was preserved only for a child born to U.S. citizens, making no mention of place of birth. In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born to citizen parents. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. As we can see, Ramsay put forth a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that only depended upon the child being born to U.S. citizen parents with no mention of place of birth;

(2) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cited Vattel and provided his definition of natural born citizens and said: “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’”);

(3) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830) (the majority, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, cited Vattel on the right of election to change one’s allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel’s jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one’s status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York or American citizen, respectively, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife’s citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born);

(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring cited Vattel and The Law of Nations and provided his definition of natural born citizens and took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, and stated: “'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .'”);

(5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875) (providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated: “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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” Id., 169 U.S. at 679-80);

(6) United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898) (a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment is a child born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett for that definition. The question that Minor did not answer was answered by Wong Kim Ark, wherein the United States argued that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Ruling against the government, Wong Kim Ark declared a child born in the country to alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, citing and quoting Minor and acknowledging its definition that a “natural-born citizen” was born in the country to citizen parents, in no way disturbed Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it was asked to decide only if Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also allowed Wong to be a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” because it found that his parents, while not U.S. citizens, were, among other things, domiciliaries, residents of the United States, and not working in some foreign diplomatic capacity and therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So Wong decided only the “citizen” part of Wong’s status. It never decided whether he also had the “natural born” part. The Court cautioned in its opinion in the beginning and at its end that it was only deciding whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment and also informed us under what limited conditions (born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not employed in some foreign diplomatic capacity) it ruled that he was so); and

(7) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father and naturalized citizen mother, the mother being derivatively naturalized by marrying a U.S. citizen, was a “natural born Citizen.”

Donald Trump has expressed some interest in running for President in 2012. We have recently seen some commentators say that Trump is not a “natural born Citizen.” The question now is whether they are correct? Trump was born on June 14, 1946, in New York to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore a “natural born Citizen.” His father, Fred C. Trump, was born on October 11, 1905, in New York, New York. His mother, Mary Anne (Mac Leod) Trump, was born on May 10, 1912, in Stornoway, Scotland. Trumps father was a U.S. citizen when he married Trump’s mother, who at that time had not yet naturalized to be a U.S. citizen. Trump was born in the United States thereafter. Under merger of the husband’s citizenship into that of the wife which was the doctrine existing at the time the Constitution was adopted and under Elg, this makes Trump a “natural born Citizen.”

In 1924, the Congress passed the Married Women’s Act, also known as the Cable Act. This act gave each woman a nationality of her own. Under this act, an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen did not need to file a declaration of intention to become a U.S. citizen. She needed only to file a naturalization petition to become a U.S. citizen. Given their dates of birth, Trump’s parents most probably married after 1924, the year the Cable Act was passed. Hence, Trump’s mother would have had to naturalize on her own to acquire U.S. citizenship. Trump’s mother naturalized to be a U.S. citizen on her own on March 10, 1942, which is over 4 years before Trump was born. Hence, when Trump was born, both his parents were "citizens of the United States." These birth circumstances make Trump a “natural born Citizen.” See http://www.thebirthers.org/misc/trumped.html for screen shots of the supporting documentation which shows that Donald Trump is a “natural born Citizen.”

Putative President Barrack Obama might also run for re-election in 2012. While our legal and political institutions have allowed Obama to escape having to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen,” he will not be able to do the same when running for re-election in 2012. Hence, the question still remains whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” As I have stated repeatedly in the past, I cannot conclude that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Obama fails to meet the “natural born Citizen” eligibility test because when he was born in 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen father and mother.

There are two open issues regarding whether putative President Obama is eligible to be President. One is place of birth. Consider that in all the law suits filed against Obama and others on the place of birth issue, including the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress law suit (which also argued that regardless of place of birth, Obama is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen” because he was not born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and mother), Obama never once produced any birth certificate (neither his Certification of Live Birth known as the COLB nor his long-form, hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth) for the court which would have put an end to the birth place issue. Why did he pursue a legal strategy (e.g. standing, political question, and other justiciability defenses) which only worked in the short term rather than just produce the birth certificate which would finally end the birth place controversy?

Why spend so much private and public money and resources fighting the same issue over and over again? Even now, over two years after the 2008 election, we see the same place of birth issue raised in various contexts. It has risen in the military context with LTC Terry Lakin, who is serving 6 months in federal prison for defending the Constitution by wanting to assure that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” We see it in ObamaCare litigation. Now some states are also moving to require proof of birth as part of a presidential candidate's requirements to get on the ballot. Officials with the National Conference of State Legislatures report that 10 states already have some sort of requirement to prove eligibility. There is Arizona's H.B. 2177 and S.B. 1157, Connecticut's SB391, Georgia's HB37, Indiana's SB114, Maine's LD34, Missouri's HB283, Montana's HB205, Nebraska's LB654, Oklahoma's SB91, SB384 and SB540, and Texas; HB295 and HB529. With Texas' 34 votes, these states possess 107 Electoral College votes. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=258585 .

Hawaii Governor Abercrombie has recently revived the birth place issue, vowing to find the birth certificate and put an end to the debate. But we have seen that he found no birth certificate. Now Donald Trump has publicly announced that Obama should do the right and simple thing and just release his long form, hospital generated birth certificate.

So, there is no end to the issue of Obama’s place of birth. Should we not blame Obama himself for this issue still existing? After all, the Constitution says that he must be a “natural born Citizen.” Is not the burden on him to satisfy that requirement? The question of where Obama was born is not a distraction, for it only takes 10 minutes and $10.00 to resolve (the amount of time and money needed to produce his real birth certificate).

Why has Obama allowed this issue to continue unabated? Why have all the Department of Justice attorneys repeatedly taken the same approach in defending Obama, i.e., fighting jurisdiction (standing) and raising any other justiciability defense? Why have they fought so hard to prevent any litigant to have discovery so that a copy of the birth certificate could be obtained? Why have they to this day never produced a copy of any birth certificate in any court which would have put an end to the birth place issue not only in that court but in all other courts present and in the future?

While the courts have not been too kind to the "birthers," why has not one court even mentioned the fact that not one court in the whole nation has yet to see Obama’s alleged birth certificate?

But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that he was born in Hawaii and also assuming that his parents are who he says they are, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen?" At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which under that same law and by descent made Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obama’s birth, Obama’s father neither intended to nor did he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only for purpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor did he become even a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

The U.S. State Department has confirmed that Obama was born with dual allegiances. Leventhal cites FactCheck.org to state, "Obama was originally both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies from 1961 to 1963 given that his father was from Kenya, which gained its independence from the British Empire in 1963. Upon independence, Obama became both a U.S. and Kenyan citizen from 1963 to 1982 [sic should be 1984], and solely a U.S. citizen after that." The entry "The Obama Birth Controversy" was written by Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State.

Obama may be a plain born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment or a Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance and loyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a foreign power, he lacks sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States from the time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birth allegiance and loyalty to the United States from birth, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 31, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

28 comments:

James said...

Tim Adams will be on Reality Check Radio Tonight - The Chief Obot Attack Group to Birthers
Please call in to defend Tim Adams.
www.blogtalkradio.com/rcr

Chief Skunk said...

Puzo1,

Another great article.

BHO "admitted" on his (campaign) website that he's "native born" and born with dual nationality. Have either he or his supporters (not Obot nutjobs but his political advisors, e.g. Gibbs et al) ever claimed him to be "natural born"? I do not remember that they have.

Is it not their strategy to simply make native=natural? If you never say "natural" the uninformed will never know there's anything wrong with what you're saying.

Keep up the good work. Hope you can meet with Trump.

The Stacker said...

Mario and Charles,

Listen to the Tim Adams interview. He has those clowns on the run!

According to Tim, all you have to do is put a 2007 COLB next to Obama's and it is a CLEAR forgery = there is no match.

This should be easy to do. GET IT DONE. The time is NOW. Get it to Trump.

Game
Set
MATCH

Puzo1 said...

It has been reported that Obama's mother is Stanley Ann Dunham and that she was born in Kansas.

Does anybody know whether Obama's family on his mother's side made any statements regarding whether Obama was born in Hawaii? One would think that his maternal family would be proud to have the President of the United States be part of their family.

Does anyone have any information whether his mother's family has come around to support the President of the United States on the question of where he was born.

If his maternal family has not, does that not present a strange picture?

MichaelN said...

Compare Obama's COLB with a certificate issued by HDoH in 1981

http://einhornpress.com/LtColLakin.aspx

MichaelN said...

Some interesting observations here, compparing Daily KOS internet images of Obama's alleged COLB with images posted by FactCheck.\

Problem it seems, is that some photocopier dust specks that show on the KOS scanned image of the 'original', also show on the photos taken of the 'original' document as photographed by FactCheck, with folds, and raised embossed stamp.

http://s1221.photobucket.com/albums/dd476/bluecat6/BC%20Pics/?albumview=slideshow

MIDDLE CLASS GUY said...

I am glad to see that the Donald is getting to speak out on the issue. I wonder why all of a sudden some conservative pundits have stopped making fun out of those of us who want to see the constutution enforced. Trump has mispoken regarding several of the facts relative to the issue. I know he has a pool of lawyers he works with but are any of them constitutional lawyers? If so, why does he not have all of the facts correct? He needs an expert like Mario Apuzzo. Have you offered your services?

Let us move forward said...

Mario,

I saw on Orly's website a long time ago that a relative on Obama's maternal side requested the BC and was told that (s)he would have to wait one year for it. I haven't heard any more about it. Wonder if (s)he ever received the BC?

If anyone would contact the relative who sought the BC, it would be interesting ask where all of the maternal and paternal relatives were living in 1961. It is likely, according to the customs of that time, than one of the relatives hosted Stanley Anne during her pregnancy and until her baby was born.

Mr. Obama has living relatives in the States. On a periodical website, there was a 2008 article about a maternal aunt and uncle, who were proud that he was President.

Jo said...

US Constitution rule for President:
= Two (2) US Citizen Parents
= Natural Born
= 35 years old

Qualification of Sir Obama:
= Mother: US Citizen
~ Father: Kenyan Citizen
~ ---
= 35 years old

Is he exempted from the rule?
Yes, the US Congress & Judicial branches of US government affirmed he is exempted.

The US Constitution is over ruled.
Representatives of we the American people in their oath of duty to honor it has simply failed.

It is common for the Representatives to say there are most important issues to face rather than fixing this urgent ineligibility issue.

The judges asserts we the American people have no standing in their court.

Thanks Atty. P. & Commander K.

bdwilcox said...

Jo, a quick correction to your prior comment:

"The judges assert we the American people have no standing in our court."

Justin said...

Many Obots say there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Question, is it correct to say that citizens at birth by statute are naturalized citizens?

atticus finch said...

Justin wrote: "Many Obots say there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Question, is it correct to say that citizens at birth by statute are naturalized citizens?"

Response:

Natural born citizen and native born citizen are analogous terms. They are a subset of the generic term citizen. As courts have explained since the beginning of our nation, that there are two types of citizens: those who are naturalized and those who are native born. "There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized. Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942). There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)


Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of § 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906) are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens, Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913)

The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted) Id at 22

Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”

"We start from the premise that 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. Art. II,§ 1. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964)

Justice Rutledge, in his dissenting opinion in Knauer v. United States, 328 US 654, 677 (1946) used the term native born as determining the eligibility for the presidency when he wrote:

”I do not find warrant in the Constitution for believing that it contemplates two classes of citizens, excepting only for two purposes. One is to provide how citizenship shall be acquired, Const., Art. I,§ 8; Amend. XIV,§ 1, the other to determine eligibility for the presidency. Const., Art. II,§ 1. The latter is the only instance in which the charter expressly excludes the naturalized citizen from any right or privilege the native-born possesses.”

As such, justices of the Supreme Court since the days of Chief Justice Marshall have been using the term "native" born in place of "natural born" to describe those individuals eligible to be president.

Therefore, the term citizen encompasses both naturalized citizen and native born citizen in which the latter term includes the term natural born.

Puzo1 said...

Justin,

You said: "Many Obots say there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Question, is it correct to say that citizens at birth by statute are naturalized citizens?"

The answer to your question is yes, if the person cannot otherwise show that he or she is a "natural born Citizen."

Under natural law and the law of nations which as adopted by our nation became American common law, there are only "natural born citizens" and naturalized citizens. These are the members of American society. In the United States, we call these members collectively, "citizens of the United States." Hence, any “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born citizen” is necessarily a naturalized citizen.

Congress only has power to naturalize. While it can by declaratory law confirm the definition of a "natural born Citizen," it has no power to change that definition, for to do so would be amending the "natural born Citizen" clause and thus the presidential eligibility requirements without constitutional amendment.

Anyone who is a "citizen of the United States" under any positive law (14th Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty) who does not also satisfy the definition of a "natural born citizen" is then necessarily a naturalized citizen, either "at birth" or after birth.

MichaelN said...

atticus finch said...
"Therefore, the term citizen encompasses both naturalized citizen and native born citizen in which the latter term includes the term natural born."
---------------------------
Response Part 1.
"The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibility."
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/the-boston-globe-%E2%80%9Cnative-born%E2%80%9D-does-not-equal-%E2%80%9Cnatural-born%E2%80%9D-for-presidential-eligibility/

MichaelN said...

Part 2
Quoting continued:

"Recently, one of my readers uncovered this crucially relevant article published in the Boston Globe on November 9, 1896 by Percy A. Bridgham, aka “The People’s Lawyer“. (Mr. Bridgham’s book, One Thousand Legal Questions Answered by the “People’s Lawyer” of the Boston Daily Globe, can be found in the Harvard Law School library.)

The People’s Lawyer, upon answering a reader’s question regarding the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause, stated:

“The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen. A child born to Irish parents in Ireland cannot become a citizen except by naturalization, while his brother born in the United States is a native born citizen; the former is neither naturally nor by nativity a citizen, the latter is not naturally, but natively a citizen.”

It’s important to note that, while this article was written two years before the controversial decision in Wong Kim Ark, Bridgham adopts a similar conclusion as Justice Gray did in that case by stating that children born of aliens on US soil are citizens. But Bridgham also states that while these children are “native born” citizens, they are not “natural born” citizens and therefore cannot be President."

"And in 1916, former Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Italy, Breckenridge Long, wrote the following in the Chicago Legal News:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

MichaelN said...

More from ...
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/justice-hugo-black-in-duncan-v-louisiana-indicates-obama-would-not-be-eligible-ineligibility-echoed-by-former-attorney-general-jeremiah-black/
Quote:
“As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

avodlp said...

Here's The Usurper ; in his own words...well, who knows- perhaps with an assist from 'ol Bill Ayers ;-)
~"Dreams From My Father"
excerpted from pg 345
"I was just thinking about how life is so strange. You know, as soon as the Old Man died,the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance. Unlike my mum, RUTH HAS all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was."

"the Old Man"=Barack Obama Sr
"my mum"= Stanley Ann Dunham
"Ruth"=Ruth Nidesand, B Obama Sr's 3rd wife 2nd U.S. Cit bore him 2 children, in Africa
"Mark"= B.O. Jr.'s half-brother, son of Sr & Ruth

atticus finch said...

Citizen is a general term meaning both naturalized and natural born citizenship. A person is a citizen of the United States either by birth or by naturalization.
Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998)("There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.”)

In fact courts have used the term native born and natural born interchangeably. The court’s language in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163(1964) demonstrated this interchangeably of native born and natural born phraseology.

In the majority opinion, Justice Douglas noted:

We start from the premise that 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. Art. II, § 1. Id at 165(emphasis added)

In his dissent, Justice Clark stated:

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a NATIVE-BORN may become President, Art. II, § 1. Id at 177 (emphasis added)

In another Supreme Court case, Baumgartner v. United States, 322 US 665 (1944) Justice Frankfurter equated native citizen with natural born citizen when he wrote:


"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency" Id. at 673

As far back as 1824, Justice Marshall described two types of citizens who were naturalized and native when he wrote:

A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He 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. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738, 827-828 (1824)

As such, the courts recognized two types of United States citizenship naturalized citizen and native/natural born citizen. If there were a legal difference between a native citizen and a natural born citizen the courts for over 220 years have failed to recognize this distinction.

juniper55 said...

Great post on American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/resolving_the_birth_certificat.html

In all seriousness, I can understand that a birth certificate for an individual might be considered a private record with a need-to-know basis, however, if there is such thing as a "delivery book" at Kapiolani Hospital (or anywhere else) where all births are recorded as a matter of course, then such a document strikes me as a general document akin to real estate land records - that is, public information available simply for the asking.

(I can look up the land ownership of ANYBODY in my state, for example, and know exactly what their property values are and where the owners live)

Has anyone requested to see the delivery book from the hopsital?

MichaelN said...

Indeed there are two types of citizens.
Born & naturalized.
Of the born, there are two types.
Native and natural born.
The native born are those born in the land.
The natural born are those born in the land as native, and whose parents are citizens of the same land.

Even as far back as 1600, English common law recognized the two essential conditions to make a 'natural born' as distinct from one who was merely native born.

Quoting Lord Coke in Calvin's case, as well as stating that a natural born was such, due by nature and birthright, Coke said..

"Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birthright"

Two essential qualities to make a 'natural born'.

Here's what Coke said of a native born who could not be a natural born, because of the status of the parent.

"that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject"

As you can see without one of the two essential qualities which are required to make a native born into a natural born, the native born misses out on being a natural born, and in this particular instance, misses out on being a subject/citizen altogether.

Puzo1 said...

atticus finch,

We both agree that there are only "natural born citizens" and naturalized citizens.

The problem with your post is that you only tell part of the story when it comes to your point about "native" and "natural born citizen" having the same meaning. It is not sufficient to tell us that the courts have treated "native" and "natural born citizen" as though they mean the same. You also have to tell us how the courts have defined those terms in the context of Article II.

If you want to be credited with presenting a complete argument, please provide citations to cases that address the issue of how the courts have defined "native" and "natural born citizen" in that context.

Puzo1 said...

Kent Clizbe, a former CIA covert case officer, is a professional vetter and wrote the following piece for Newsmax.com:

"In the 2008 presidential election, candidates were vetted by the press in varying degrees. The media examined, analyzed, and publicly evaluated them. They explored in detail John McCain’s personal wealth, marriage, place of birth, mental stability, and other important issues. McCain cooperated, provided documents, and answered questions.

On the other hand, Barack Obama’s background remains nearly a blank slate. His school records, from kindergarten to law school, remain hidden. The story of his financial support is hidden — his private elementary and high school in Hawaii, his international travel, his graduate and undergraduate tuition and living expenses, and more. And these are just the beginning of the Barack Obama vetting failure.

***

The most disturbing aspect of attempts to vet the mystery candidate was the Obama camp’s vigorous response. Their stereotypical response is nearly as damning as any information that could be revealed: Admitting nothing, denying everything, and making counteraccusations, the vetting of candidate Obama continues."

Read more on Newsmax.com: Ex-CIA Operative: Obama Never Properly Vetted
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Mick said...

Every citizen not born of 2 US Citizen parents on US Soil is Naturalized in some way, either by Congressional statute (USC 8 S. 1401)and election of residence at the age of majority, or by oath (where the oath taker swears off any allegiance to any other foreign power).
Only the ones born of US Citizen parentSSS on US soil need no naturalization. So yes, there are either natural born or naturalized citizens.

atticus finch said...

MichaelIN wrote: "Born & naturalized.
Of the born, there are two types.
Native and natural born.
The native born are those born in the land.
The natural born are those born in the land as native, and whose parents are citizens of the same land."


Response:
Courts have never recognized "natural born citizen" as being classified as an ubercitizen or super-citizen in which the natural born citizen has special endowed legal powers far superior to those of mere native born citizens.

Courts have never distinguished native born citizens from natural born citizens.

"There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen. Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F. 2d 209, 211 (10th Cir. 1951)

"The Constitution of the United States provides as a qualification for the offices of President and Vice-President that the person elected must be a native-born citizen." ex parte Garland, 71 US 333, 395 (1866)

In Luria v. United States, 231 US 9(1913), the court observed: Several contentions questioning the constitutional validity of § 15 [Naturalization Act of 1906) are advanced, but all, save the one next to be mentioned, are sufficiently answered by observing that the section makes no discrimination between the rights of naturalized and native citizens." Id at 24.

The Luria court further noted that a native citizen is the same as a natural born citizen: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE CITIZEN in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added) Id at 22

Similarly, the court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929) observed: “Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do NATIVE BORN CITIZENS.” (emphasis added)

As such, courts have been equating native born with natural born in which both terms have been used to distinguish those citizens who are naturalized.

The expression, "natural-born citizen," recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle common to all nations, and as old as political society, — that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. Every person born in the country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen.
Alexander Porter Morse,” A Treatise of Citizenship” (1881) page 125

Puzo1 said...

atticus finch,

I do not understand your comment about a "ubercitizen or super-citizen." Your own posts recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.

Also, you have added nothing to this debate by your latest post. You simply repeat that a "native- born citizen" is the same as a "natural born Citizen," except that only the latter is eligible to be President, but you do not provide any cases which define those citizens within the context of Article II.

Justin said...

Thanks for your replies. Though to be honest a simple yes or no answer would have sufficed. LOL. I've followed this from the start and am firmly in the, two citizen parents of the country of your birth equals natural born, camp. But as you probably know the Obots at Dr. Conspiracy and Salon are in the, born a citizen under any circumstances equals natural born, camp. I've been trying use citizen by law, native born, etc. So my new more concise argument will be yes, you are either natural born or naturalized, yes, Obama was born in Hawaii,yes, Obama was born and is a citizen, BUT since he is a citizen by act of Congress he is a naturalized citizen, therefore ineligible. Sure it won't convince any of them but it's a cleaner argument.

Puzo1 said...

I have noticed how those who attack Donald Trump on his demanding that Obama should release to the American public his real birth certificate (like the two that Trump quickly released) have a lot to say about the man Trump but very little to say for Obama's nativity story. They sure are full of comments about Trump but very empty on facts which should show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

Puzo1 said...

President George Washington was a "citizen of the United States" at the time the Constituion was adopted and as such was grandfathered to be eligible to be President by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The problem with Obama is that he was born 174 years too late to benefit as did Washington from that special clause which allowed all the Founders and Framers to be eligible to be President. Obama's problem is that, if he was born in Hawaii (which he has yet to conclusively prove), at best he is a "citizen of the United States" like Washington but also like Washington he is not a "natural born Citizen."