Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Natural-Born Question

February 23, 2012 by  

Where did the Founding Fathers come up with the term “natural-born citizen” that they used in the qualifications for President?

The term comes from The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.

The Founders, all very learned and scholarly men, referenced many works as they deliberated on exactly what the Constitution should say: those of John Locke and Sir William Blackstone among them. But their ideas on citizenship obviously came from Vattel.

Benjamin Franklin ordered three copies of Vattel’s Le droit des gens (The Law of Nations) from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in the original French. Upon receiving it, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”

What exactly does Le droit des gens say about citizenship? In “§ 212 Of the citizens and naturals,” Vattel writes: “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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

The term “natural-born citizen” is used only in the qualifications for President. It is not used in the qualifications for Representative or Senator. It’s clear the Founders meant for the person holding the office of President to have a loyalty to the United States only, and that’s why they used that term specifically.

Neither Barack Obama nor Marco Rubio had parents (plural) who were citizens, and that is why Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President and Rubio — despite the wishes of many Republicans — is ineligible to run as Vice President.

Source: http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

Editor’s note: It’s time to make your submissions for this month’s You Sound Off! feature, which will run Feb. 29. Get your submission in by Feb. 27. It should be no more than 750 words (if they are longer, we probably won’t read them). We will select the one or two we think are the best of the week to publish. We reserve the right to edit for grammar and style but will try not to alter the meaning.

Send your submissions to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com. Please include your name, address and telephone number (only your name will be published) so we can contact you if we need to clarify something. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.–BL

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Natural-Born Question”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • http://naver samurai

    Good one about what a natural born citizen is, Bob. Now maybe the left wing wackos will know what this means. This also means that Obama bin Laden is not a natural born citizen, ergo he cannot be the POTUS. But I guess he can be the COOTUS (Community Organizer of the United States). Keep up the good fight, fellow patriot! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    P.S. I recently heard that Sarah Palin may be thinking of running, have you heard about this also Bob?

    • Vicki

      Samurai writes:

      Now maybe the left wing wackos will know what this means.

      The left knows full well what Natural Born Citizen means. It has been pointed out to them dozens of times on the only site that constantly tracks the issue (wnd.com). They will continue however to lie or confuse as they have done since the issue was raised in 2008.

      I applaud Bob Livingston for tackling this rather sensitive issue. Whenever I have checked on wnd the the comments section of any article on Obama’s eligibility garners by far the most comments per article.

      • Sirian

        Vicki,
        You’re right, Doc Sarvis has tossed in a distractor – Schwarzenegger. Yep, you’re right.

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear samurai,

      I believe it is too late for her to enter the “race.” However, I don’t believe she has closed the door to the prospect of being named the nominee in a brokered or negotiated convention.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Sirian

        I agree Bob, it could very well come down to a brokered convention. Brokered convention? Hmmm, a “brokerage house” in disguise? Just kiddin’. . . :)

      • APN

        Bob, How exactly does a brokered convention work as it relates to the delegates won by each candidate?

        Best regards,

        APN

    • http://povertylinge Smilee

      Why is it that you all keep ignoring the rulings of the Indiana Appeals Court and the court in Georgia whom have debunked your interpetations of “Natural Born Citizen”. If higher courts refuse to hear it or do and uphold the lower courts your interpetations will be completely debunks and yoour take on it will mean absoulutly nothing. To date persons have approached on many occasions this and similiar lawsuits and have been stopped in their tracks each and every time. Few people think you have much of a chance of suceeding.. but you could at least acknowledge that the courts disagree with you and stop acting like you know better.

      • Hugo

        We do know better smilee. But keep being a sheep if it makes you haaaaapy.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Funny!! you really expect me to believe your smaarter tthan the courts whom are educated in the law??? What a JOKE!!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Smilee, as pointed out to you yesterday. The Georgia judges ruling was not based on previous Supreme Court rulings that have precedence but rather on the “dicta” of Indiana’s Minor Court ruling.
        (reprint from yesterday)
        http://www.examiner.com/paulding-county-republican-in-atlanta/ruling-on-obama-eligibility-case-lacked-constitutional-interpretation
        In other words, the Georgia court violated a basic rule of legal interpretation by ruling as it did. The court determined that a clear definition of natural born citizen from Supreme Court precedent was overturned by dicta in another Supreme Court case. Precedent is any statement by the court that is pivotal to reaching the court’s ruling. Dicta is the opposite of precedent. Dicta is a statement by the court about matters that are not pivotal to reaching its ruling. Dicta is persuasive, but it cannot overturn precedent.

        The Georgia court also violated rules of Constitutional interpretation that have been around since the earliest Supreme Court. Our first Chief Justice explained that no part of the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that leaves any other part of the Constitution without independent meaning. By ruling that anyone born on U.S. soil can run for President the Georgia court concluded that the 14th Amendment was intended to alter article II of the Constitution. Such an interpretation is 180 degrees in opposite to Chief Justice Marshall’s explanation of how to interpret the Constitution.

        In order to reach this conclusion the Georgia court also had to disregard yet another part of the holding from the Minor v. Happersett Supreme Court ruling. Even if you ignore the rules of Constitutional construction and the rule that dicta can’t overturn precedent, even if you agree with the Georgia court that the definition of natural born citizen in the Minor decision was dicta, you still can’t reach the Georgia court’s ruling. You see, the Minor Court ALSO explicitly ruled that the 14th Amendment didn’t create any new privileges and immunities. So, if a person couldn’t run for President before the 14th Amendment, they couldn’t run for President after the 14th Amendment. This means that the Minor Court explicitly ruled that the 14th amendment didn’t alter the definition of natural born citizen under article II of the Constitution. Yet the Georgia court ignored this Supreme Court ruling as well.

        This is a matter of the Constitutional rule of law and the Georgia ruling was in err and not made with that in mind. Far from over Smilee.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Jeffie
        Your free to believe any garbage you wish and believe anything you want but to date the courts have totally debunked your garbage. The Supreme Court may not even hear it and then the current court ruling will be the final say, what you say is nothing more than your own twisted thinking which ignores the reality of how the courts work. I read you referenced propaganda site which also is nothing more than garbage and I also read the court ruling. I will stick with the reality and ignore your wishful thinking. Your such a JOKE!!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        …correction…The Indiana case cited by the Georgia judge was:

        2009 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Arkeny v. Governor

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        More gagabge from Jeffie!!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Smilee says baaaaa, baaaaa, baaaa! FYI, that ringing sound you hear is accually the sound from the bell attached to your collar.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Your inability to say anything intelligent is showing Jeffie, don’t be to embarrasssed though we we know you cannot help yourself

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Smilee talks of others embarassing themselves…but it is Smilee who should think before he/she says something so rediculous…he/she even thinks he/she is smarter yet can’t even spellcheck him/her self.

        This is a great example of why it’s great to keep liberals like Smilee around:

        Smilee says:
        “Funny!! you really expect me to believe your smaarter tthan the courts whom are educated in the law??? What a JOKE!!”

        “Your such a JOKE!!”

        “Your inability to say anything intelligent is showing Jeffie, don’t be to embarrasssed though we we know you cannot help yourself”

        “Eat your heart out but the truth will expose you as the JOKE YOU REALLY ARE.”

      • Vicki

        Smilee says:

        Funny!! you really expect me to believe your smaarter tthan the courts whom are educated in the law???

        No. we don’t expect you to believe. We are well aware of your purpose. We do offer evidence to the other readers and let them decide.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Vicki says:
        February 23, 2012 at 1:40 pm
        Smilee says:

        Funny!! you really expect me to believe your smaarter tthan the courts whom are educated in the law???

        No. we don’t expect you to believe. We are well aware of your purpose. We do offer evidence to the other readers and let them decide.

        CHERRY PICKED EVIDENCE, YOU IGNORE LOT OF EVIDENCE OR GIVE EVIDENCE THAT IS IRRELEVANT. HOW CAN ANYONE MAKE AN INTELLIGENT CONCLUSION IF YOU DO NOT GIVE THEM ALL THE FACTS. WOULD YU WANT A JURY TO MAKE A DECISION ON YOUR FATE BASED ON CHERRY PICKED EVIDENCE. EVERYONE HERE IS TRYING TO SHOOT DOWN OR IGNORE THE COUTS LATEST DECISION BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE THE DECISION. TOUGH!!

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        It’s amusing that Smilee has now resorted to yelling(indicated by the use of caps.

        It’s also amazing tat Smilee says (with a straight face?): “HOW CAN ANYONE MAKE AN INTELLIGENT CONCLUSION IF YOU DO NOT GIVE THEM ALL THE FACTS.”

        Yet…it is the facts that are presented here with cited Supreme Court cases that have set a precidence which the Geprgia judges ruling has completely ignored.

        The better question here is…who’s intelligence is in question?

      • Tony

        what makes you think the courts or i should say some of the judges care about upholding the constitution of the united states?

      • http://naver samurai

        Wrong answer smilee (Kang)! Look at this cource and weep. I told you Indiana is reviewing his eligibility.

        http://www.godfatherpolitics.com/3835/more-challenges-to-obama-eligibility/

        Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • vicki

        Smilee complains about our “cherry picked evidence” (Do you have a definition for that phrase Smilee?) but offers NO evidence of his own and resorts to shouting.

        Color us unimpressed.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        samurai says:
        February 23, 2012 at 5:29 pm
        Wrong answer smilee (Kang)! Look at this cource and weep. I told you Indiana is reviewing his eligibility.

        http://www.godfatherpolitics.com/3835/more-challenges-to-obama-eligibility/

        Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!
        —————————————————-
        Sammie

        Is propaganda sites the only sources you read? They are all lies and you seem to be able to not fugure that out. He is on the ballot in indiana and he will be on it this fall.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        vicki says:
        February 23, 2012 at 5:40 pm
        Smilee complains about our “cherry picked evidence” (Do you have a definition for that phrase Smilee?) but offers NO evidence of his own and resorts to shouting.

        ——————————————————

        You assumed the caps where shouting, wrong, I must have hit the cap key by mistake and was not going to retype it to please silly peoplr like you. Do you really not know what cherry picking is?? Well, it is picking just partial evidence that expressses your biases and distorts the whole picture, now, do you think you can ubderstand it?

      • KHM

        @Smilee,
        One, the recent ruling in Georgia was a complete about face from what was said when the court agreed to hear the ballot eligibility issue. I think the fix was in because “coincidentally” the state of Georgia was offered approval on permits for a couple of nuclear power plants (which will probably never get built). The other eligibility cases the plaintiffs were denied standing. I don’t know why.
        What I do know is that 8 times between 2000-2007 Congress tried to change the qualifications for eligibility. Hmmm. Also that there was a secret, closed door meeting with Obama and 8 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices. Then all those cases were dismissed for lack of “standing”.
        Also any other defendant who failed to appear in a case or provide any evidence would be in contempt of court. Unfortunately, the laws that Congress and the President enact on us don’t apply to them.
        Obama is completely ineligible to hold the office he occupies. IF he was born in Hawaii this is still true. As others point out his purported father was never a US citizen and his mother not yet 21 (the age of majority then) so could not even confer citizenship on Barry.
        Then you add the fact that he was purportedly adopted by Soetoro,was dropped from his mother’s US passport so Barry could be enrolled in a state-run school in Indonesia.

      • Joe H

        sMILEE, IF YOU HAD MERELY HIT THE CAPS KEY AS STATED, THEN WHY AREN’T THE FIRST LETTERS OF EACH SENTENCE LOWER CASE AS MINE HERE ARE? cAN’T UNDERSTAND?????

      • Matt Newell

        Smilee — actually the Supreme Court did define “natural-born” way back when. It is the Liberal judges who are wrong in their findings. But I am sure you were well aware of that before this.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

         KHM says:
        February 23, 2012 at 6:04 pm
        You have quite the interesting imagination but absolutely no facts to support it

         Joe H says:
        February 23, 2012 at 8:23 pm
        Not sure your capable of understanding but I accidently hit The caps key part way through and leave it to silly joey to try and make an issue of it.

         Matt Newell says:
        February 23, 2012 at 9:23 pm
        Two courts have ruled different than the old SC so to reinstate the old SC decision the current SC would have to reverse the current decisions that found Obama eligible to be on the ballot because they found he was a natural born citizen. Eat your heart out!!

      • Vicki

        Smilee says:

        You assumed the caps where shouting, wrong, I must have hit the cap key by mistake and was not going to retype it to please silly peoplr like you.

        An amusing ad hominim attack. However it is interesting to note that you type blind since anyone else would notice in a word or 2 that the caps lock is on.

        Do you really not know what cherry picking is?? Well, it is picking just partial evidence that expressses your biases and distorts the whole picture, now, do you think you can ubderstand it?

        Of course I know what it means just as the founders knew what “natural born citizen” meant. Thus you see why we find your argument on the definition of natural born citizen both amusing and wrong.

      • http://naver samurai

        Oh come on smilee (Kang), you van’t be stupid enough to believe my source is just propaganda. Well, you are stupid, but that’s beside the point. Even the Indiana Attorney General at the time, a lib, was recently fired for committing voter fraud. So Indiana is bringing up the case again and the 2009 decision is now out with the trash. Sheesh! When are you ever going to wise up, get over your superiority complex (Believe me, you are the least intelligent person on this site), and post some real facts and sources? We all know that you are and adjutator, hetero-phobe, racist, biggot, and just neeeeed to make that popping sound. Care to cite a source showing what my source stated is wrong? Didn’t think so. Sorry dude, but your “messiah” is going down in November. That means Obama bin Laden can start going back to his gay club in Chicago. You are a joke, smilee (KANG). You can’t win against patriots that are a lot smarter than you. Also, other states, like Mississippi, Alabama, and others are also bringing this up to their courts. So if one finds himineligible, look for more to follow. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. Aren’t you getting tired of we patriots having to educate you? I know your lib mind is in permanent recess mode, but sheesh!

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Sammie
        You could not educate anything or anybody as you have to have some intelligence first and that you have none of, What’s the attorney general’s legal problems got to do with this issue as it will not effect the court case only the higher courts can change that and that is not likely. Sorry Sammie but it is impossible to believe anything you say your such a big liar and you only listen to and believe the lies set forth on the sites you visit and those lies is why they are called propaganda sites. Propaganda = lies. I guess I truly have gotten under your skin, that happens to bigots when they are confronted with the truth. Did you know that in current polls Obama is leading by 18 points, many now think he is most likely going to win reelection unless something bad happens by election time. There is no way he will not be on the ballot in all fifty states this fall. You’re a dreamer and it seems I may have changed your dreams into nightmares by confronting you with the truth. You do not stand any change of educating me in anything as you would first have to know more than me to have a chance. For someone who brags about how great a Christian he is you sure fell down in this post that is full of lies (a sin) and all the below the belt name calling not befitting any Christian.

      • http://naver samurai

        You confront people with the truth and facts? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! That was a good laugh. I really thank you for it. Look who is calling me a liar, a person who never cites facts or sources. I’ll just leave it at that. Remember, we both have a promise to Bob Livingston. Since you wish to push the envelope and test Bob, I’ll be the bigger man and not rise to the occaision. Go bait someone else. BTW, my dreams are just fine. I had one last night about my family and I going to Hawaii. Doesn’t look like your affecting me one bit. Have a good day, poopsie! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Doc Sarvis

    It was not too many years ago that the Right wanted to scrap the citizenship requirement to be President. That was when they were all pumped up about then newly elected CA governor Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger.

    • Vicki

      Proof by bald assertion. Typical. There was a movie made where the subject was touched on but that looked more like the friendly rivalry between Arnold and Sylvester
      http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/08/04/arnold-schwarzenegger-vs-sylvester-stallone/

    • Joe H

      Doc,
      Had they actually tried that, there would have been such an uprising as you have never seen!! Even the BLIND could see that no one of the KENNEDY clan would EVER marry a true conservative!!!! Ol’ Joe would be ROLLING in his grave, and as far as I know , his grave is quiet!! The squirminator later PROVED what I say!!! He is just another RINO!!!

      • APN

        That is a fact JoeH! Biggest disaster as the Governator on the planet! He should have stuck with acting! Wait a minute???? All we have is BAD RINO/Prog actors in Washington!

  • Chester

    The big problem here is that if you follow that speech exactly as written, the ONLY people who would qualify for the office of president would be native Americans, as they are the only people who can trace their citizenship far beyond the writing of the constitution. All the rest of us are descendants of immigrants, and therefore do not fit the precise wording of that item.

    • Christin

      Chester, you are in left field…

      If you follow that article or book exactly as it is written: It states that a ‘natural born citizen’ is one whose PARENTS are born in that country thus the child(ren) are citizens as they come into age and accept responsibility in that society… NOT born from your grandparents, great grandparents, great-great grandparents, great-great-great grandparents, etc… you knuckle head.

      Man, what a twist of facts and statements.

    • WilliamWallace

      Chester, that is absolutely not true. Scientific archaeolgy has revealed that Europeans were the original inhabitants of North and South America. Don’t believe my words, look it up yourself. Read “The First Americans” by Dr. J.M. Adovasio. Research the ancient Clovis culture of America and you will discover that is was not an Asian culture. The Clovis people used tools and spearheads that can only be matched to spearheads created by the Solutrean culture of France. A comprehensive research project conducted by Dr. Dennis Stanford (Director of the Smithsonian’s Paleoindian/Paleoecology Program)
      in Siberia and throughout Asia found no link between Clovis lithics and Asian lithics (they used completely different technologies). Study the DNA results of ‘Kennewick Man’ and ‘The Windover Bog People’. Watch the PBS/Nova production called “Ice Age Columbus”. America has been a melting pot for tens of thousands of years and the story of the peopling of America is much more complicated than today’s Indian tribes would like it to be.

    • Michael

      That is not true – parents become citizens because their parents were born in a country. I believe, even American Indians came to this country from another, so according to your argument, no one is a “natural born citizen”. That sure simplifies things come the 2012 election.

      • Joe H

        Michael,
        THAT problem is covered by the constitution as they found a problem with making Washington president. It was noted that every president there after had to be born here. The birth of this nation is the starting date, not the date of original occupiers of this country.

      • http://naver samurai

        Born in this country (Or on U.S. soil, like a military base overseas) and both parents being American citizens. This leaves out Obama bin Laden as his father was not an American citizen. Just read the definition that Bob put in bold letters in the article. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • cawun cents

    Paul of Tarsus was a Roman citizen,but that didnt keep the Romans from clapping him in irons when he refused to worship Caesar.-CC.

    • Christin

      cawun cents,
      Evil always harms those who worship the Living God (especially when they mention the name of Jesus] and those who don’t follow the evil rulers down the path to slavery and hell….

      Kind of like now… our evil rulers have called terrorists as:
      the Christians (1st Amendment religion believers),
      Pro-life (God is Life),
      Veterans (who have sworn an oath to defend the people, nation and constitution),
      2nd Amendment right to bare arms believers,
      Constitutionalists (only gov that gives the most FREEDOMS and Liberty to its people),
      and preppers who plan ahead to have food & water… ,

      Essentially, the Tea Party hard working class American Patriots… these groups are already enslaved (taxes, permits, TSA, Big Brother watching, listening and monitoring movement , burdensome laws, jobs and companies sent overseas.) and soon they too will be detained …like Paul.

      BUT they do not call THEMSELVES tyrants or terrorists… they who are stealing all the wealth and power by organizing wars, death, and protests,rewriting history and laws that go against the people, redistributing the wealth or spending the tax payers money on their own agenda, and collapsing currencies and governments.

      • cawun cents

        You are in effect,singing to the choir.
        Well aware,am I of the tendencies of those who wish to obtain power of god over others,instead of letting God reign over them.
        Our nation,wrapped in legal leprosy.
        Crippled by its own negligence.
        Enslaving the populace to the avarice of powermongers.
        Whoring our military to the world to police its failed oligarchies.
        Watching leftists attempt to nation build in Islamic nations.
        Seeing them plant the seeds of desperation in the gambit for world domination.
        Turning further away from God,in a show of arrogant vanity.
        Their destruction is certain.
        Only the tick of the clock seperates them from their fate.
        -CC.

      • Christin

        cawun cents,

        Not sing AT you, just WITH you in unison and in agreement.

        Good comments.

      • http://naver samurai

        Well said CC and Christin, fellow patriots! Let’s keep up the good fight for this country and our Christian founding. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • TML

    “Neither Barack Obama nor Marco Rubio had parents (plural) who were citizens, and that is why Obama is ineligible to hold the office of President”

    Plural is used here as part of the context, not a requirement…

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The sentence references “natives” (plural), “natural born citizens” (plural), “those born in” (plural) … and therefore references “parents” (plural), and again “citizens” (plural)

    Other parts actually dismiss the mother as a necessity in the preceding quote all together, requiring only one parent to be a citizen… albeit the father.

    “those ‘children’ naturally follow the condition of their ‘fathers’” (plural)
    “The country of the ‘fathers’ is therefore that of the ‘children’” (plural)
    “it is necessary that a ‘person’ be born of a ‘father’ who is a ‘citizen’” (singular)

    In a post-women’s rights American world, is it really so appropriate to hold the citizenship of a father above the mother according to a definition written by an 18th century Frenchman; in a time in which women were held subservient to men?

    Why not with the mother as the one parent? Why should we even specify mother or father?

    “it is necessary that a person be born of a [person] who is a citizen”

    Are we to assume that a child born overseas who’s two parents are citizens, is a natural born citizen, while a child born inside the country with only one citizen parent is not?

    I reject the apparent sexist definition, and I continue to hold my conclusion developed from our debate yesterday….

    “Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:

    • Anyone born inside the United States
    • Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    • Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    • 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
    • A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
    http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_08.txt

    Note, accordingly, if born ‘inside’ the United States, you are a citizen or natural born citizen, even if only one parent is a citizen.

    According to the definitions in the Nationalization Act of 1790, and the United States Supreme Court, in Minor v, Happersett, 1875… The definition of natural born citizen is then expanded to include anyone born ‘outside’ the United States, as long as both parents are United States citizens at time of birth.

    This seems to me the most rational standpoint.

    Obama has presented a birth certificate which places his birth in Honolulu.
    Therefore, one must first prove that the certificate is a forgery, and that he was born outside the United Stated for Obama to be ineligible.

    • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

      TML, see my response to Smilee above…The court determined that a clear definition of natural born citizen from Supreme Court precedent was overturned by dicta in another Supreme Court case(Indiana’s Minor vs.). Precedent is any statement by the court that is pivotal to reaching the court’s ruling. Dicta is the opposite of precedent. Dicta is a statement by the court about matters that are not pivotal to reaching its ruling. Dicta is persuasive, but it cannot overturn precedent.

      In other words, the Georgia court violated a basic rule of legal interpretation by ruling as it did. The Georgia court also violated rules of Constitutional interpretation that have been around since the earliest Supreme Court. Our first Chief Justice explained that no part of the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that leaves any other part of the Constitution without independent meaning. By ruling that anyone born on U.S. soil can run for President the Georgia court concluded that the 14th Amendment was intended to alter article II of the Constitution. Such an interpretation is 180 degrees in opposite to Chief Justice Marshall’s explanation of how to interpret the Constitution.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        …correction: The Indiana case cited by the Georgia judge Malihi was the 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals case, Arkeny v. Governor.

        Malihi’s decision will go to Georgia Secretary of State Kevin Kemp for review and a final decision.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Jeffie

        Wow, The SS does not have the final say he has to go by the courts direction and he has already said Obama will be on the ballot. You will believe any BS, facts, you always ignore. Do you realize how stupid that makes you lokk.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Do you feel better now? Get it off your chest Smilee, tell me what you really think?

        Stupid is as stupid does
        Forrest Gump

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Running out of words there Jeffie,

      • Michael J.

        Smilee,
        Malihi and Obama, both are Muslim names.

        It’s as obvious as a child molester named Chester.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Smilee, why don’t you go after Mr. Livingston with the same zeal? Your arguement is based on a lower court judges erroneuos opinion based on a “dicta”. My arguement is based on settled Supreme Court rulings that have set precedence and are now historical references.

        There are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”. Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel.

        1. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) – In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition of The Laws of Nations, using his own English.

        2. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) – At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”.

        3. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) – The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he 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.

        4. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) – In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: 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.

        Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

        Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.
        http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/

        Go ahead and disparage these Supreme Court rulings and the founders well documented intent all you want…if it makes you feel better. The Georgia ruling was obviously wrong!

      • Michael J.

        JeffH,
        Smilee’s lik abox a choc olates…
        Ya nevva know whatchu gona git…

        Forest Gump

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        Michael J. :) Oh, I think we have a pretty good idea though. :)

      • TML

        Jeff H says, “The court determined that a clear definition of natural born citizen from Supreme Court precedent was overturned by dicta in another Supreme Court case(Indiana’s Minor vs.).”

        I assume you are not talking about the Supreme Court case I cited, Minor v, Happersett, 1875…

        So, I will suffice to say, I never cited anything about the Indiana Appeals Court and the court in Georgia. Although…

        Jeff H says, “By ruling that anyone born on U.S. soil can run for President”

        …I wouldn’t say that… the constitution gives ‘natural born citizen’ as only one requirement; stating also that the person must be 35 or years old or older, and have resided in the States for 15 years.

      • TML

        Jeff cites, “3. Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) – The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he 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.”

        In continuation of the above citation: “….Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents.”

        My, my… all this over the inclusion of the ‘s’ at the end of parents, when referencing children.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        TML if you had noticed I corrected my erroneous reference to Indana/Minor.

        Also, I refer you back to Mr. Livingston’s first two sentances which are correct and are used as a reference, either directly or indirectly, in the 4 Supreme Court case decisions on the issue of “natural born” citizen prior to the Georgia ruling, thussetting a precedence of which Judge Mahali ignored:

        “Where did the Founding Fathers come up with the term “natural-born citizen” that they used in the qualifications for President?”

        “The term comes from The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.”

      • Vigilant

        Jeff,
        With all due respect, the problem of defining “natural born citizen” would seem to be far from settled. If, for example, the SCOTUS cited “§ 212 Of the citizens and naturals,” then Vattel is claiming that only one parent need be a citizen, i.e., “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.” This seems to indicate that only one need be a citizen, and the following (Wikipedia) quote appears to confirm this:

        “The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.”

        I bring this up because 3 of my 5 children were born overseas while I was in the service. The mother was not a US citizen, but the State Dept. issued each one a certificate, a
        Report of US Citizen born abroad.” I find it difficult to imagine that the hundreds of thousands of children born to US servicemembers overseas would be classified as ineligible to run for president, whether one or both parents were US citizens. If this criterion were used, even John McCain would have been ineligible in his run in 2008.

        To apply a standard that they would have had to be born on US territory, only children born in an embassy or consulate would be eligible.

        It’s a curious issue, and I admit I’m not sure whether or not my foreign-born US citizen children would be frozen out of the process if they so chose to run.

      • TML

        Jeff H cites: “Where did the Founding Fathers come up with the term “natural-born citizen” that they used in the qualifications for President?” – “The term comes from The Law of Nations by Emerich de Vattel in 1758.”

        Then I shall repeat it here:

        Emerich de Vattel in the ‘Law of Nations’ identifies one parent as being sufficient…

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country (natural born), it is necessary that a ‘person’ be born of a ‘father’ who is a ‘citizen’” (singular)

        And again, without the sexist discrimination:

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country (natural born), it is necessary that a ‘person’ be born of a [person] who is a ‘citizen’” (singular)

      • http://naver samurai

        TML and smilee have missed some things:

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

        Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253-253 (1814)
        Notice parents as being plural (Mother and father.).

        “…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were it’s citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were native or natural born citizens…”

        Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
        Parents are plural (Mother and father).

        “…all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were native or natural born citizens…”

        United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
        Parents are plural (Mother and father).

        I guess that this should put the debate to rest. Obama bin Laden’s father was not a U.S. Citizen, ergo Obama bin Laden is not eligible to hold office. This is aso why Marco Rubio cannot attain a higher office than what he currently holds. Remember fellow patriots, November is just a short time away and let’s make our voices heard. Let’s send the pretender (Community Organizer of the United States) packing back to Chicago. I’m sure the gay bar he frequented would welcome him back with open arms. Prove me wrong smilee. I invite you little lib mind to try. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • Paul B.

      I believe your confusion is the difference between “natural-born” citizen and citizen “at birth”. There is a difference, otherwise just about any child born in US would be “natural born, and that is not what the Constitution defines or intended.

      Actually there is nothing we can do about him now, except at the state level and denying him access to ballots at the state level. He will never be impeached because the courts will “rule” that he was duly elected, although illegal, they won’t overturn it. The only way to use this truth is to disallow his re-election, one state at a time.

      I don’t believe he will win anyway as dismal a record he has on the economy, class warfare, international policies, etc, etc, etc. People are becoming increasingly aware despite the Liberal MSM’s cover, having shielded this administration’s destruction for three years.

      As much as they tout his “secured” re-election, and constant bashing of any opponent (like a corner dog), it is because they are fearful that won’t be able to rally enough DC dependents to actually pull it out.

      Most of those people won’t care enough to get out and vote like they did the first time. He was “novel” in 2008, the uniformed masses have mostly moved-on to the newest “fad.” Politics are close to the last thing on their mind.

      • TML

        Paul B says, “I believe your confusion is the difference between “natural-born” citizen and citizen “at birth”.”

        You assert there is a difference… would you like to elaborate on that difference? Quite simply, I don’t see much difference at all between a citizen at birth and natural born citizen… what’s the difference? I would closer say that natural born citizen was specified to make the difference between that, and a citizen through naturalization.

        Paul B says, “There is a difference, otherwise just about any child born in US would be “natural born,”

        And the problem with that is what?

        Paul B says, “and that is not what the Constitution defines or intended.”

        The Constitution does not offer to define “natural born citizen”, so it seems you are assuming the intent based on subjective desire.

      • Paul B.

        TML,
        A citizen at birth would any child born on American soil, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, hence the creation of the term anchor-babies, or a child as described in any of the definitions you provided above. But given that either or neither of a child born in the US might not be citizens, there would be some question as to his eventual allegiance, ties, bonds, dedication to the principles and policies of the US given that that child could have dual citizenship…such that during childhood they most likely won’t be living in Indonesia for a significant period of time and raised by foreign nationals, etc.

        The intent was to only allow those people who were born of citizens with no other allegiance, or upbringing as anything other than American.

        There must be a difference between the two, otherwise the Founders would not have placed special language when describing the qualifications for President versus any other federal position like Rep or Senator.

      • TML

        Agreed… see my post below in response to Bob

    • Al

      Historically is has been the mother’s condition that determined, absent other factors, the condition of the child. If the mother was a slave, all her children, whether fathered by a free man or a slave, were slaves unless elevated by a positive act of the father.
      Only recently has it been possible to prove a child’s father beyond a reasonable doubt. That a particular child came out of a particular woman also, until very recently, proved that the child was generated by the woman the child came out of.
      It is only by presumption that the children of a woman were sired by her husband. But now it is provable by DNA analysis “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The presumption was always rebuttable by due proof.

      • TML

        Al says, “Historically is has been the mother’s condition that determined, absent other factors, the condition of the child. If the mother was a slave, all her children, whether fathered by a free man or a slave, were slaves unless elevated by a positive act of the father.”

        Agreed

      • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

        Dear TML,

        Perhaps this example will help. Marco Rubio was reportedly born in the U.S. in 1971. According to the 14th Amendment and subsequent SC rulings, Rubio became a citizen at birth by virtue of his being born in the U.S. His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time. According to their citizenship papers, Rubio’s parents became U.S. citizens in 1975. Rubio is not a natural-born citizen because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • TML

        Bob, I suppose that would define a difference between “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” (as Paul B. asserted), but this does not conflict with my argument. I can agree that Rubio is not a natual born citizen, because neither (none) of his parents were citizens at the time of his birth on American soil. Had his mother, or father, (either or both) been an American citizen at the time of his birth on American soil, then I would believe him considered natural born and eligible.

      • TML

        Furthermore; if I accept that there is a difference in the definition of “citizen at birth” and “natural born citizen” for the purpose of dismissing Title 8 of the U.S. Code in my earlier quote…

        “Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth”

        Then I revert to the first portion of my initial argument in this article, using your own source from Emerich de Vattel in the ‘Law of Nations’ which identifies one parent as being sufficient (but without the sexist discrimination.

        Namely; “it is necessary that a ‘person’ be born of a ‘father’ who is a ‘citizen’” (singular)

        “I say, that, in order to be of the country (natural born), it is necessary that a ‘person’ be born of a [person] who is a ‘citizen’” (singular)

      • http://naver samurai

        Bzzzzz! Wrong again TML. Read the postings I have from the SCOTUS above this one. They all say parents. Ergo, both mother and father must be U.S. Citizens to be natural born ctizens. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. What Paul said about the slaves is irrelevant. Since slaves were not citizens of this country, ergo, their children would be slaves also. No matter who their father was. Even if their father was free, the child could never be. No natural born citizen or citizenship period. They have nothing to do with what was said in the post or in the Constitution till after the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

    • http://povertylinge Smilee

      JeffH says:
      February 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      My first post was addressed to his article. You just do not understand how the legal sustem works, if a court finds different than any previous court only a higher court can change that ruling all the way up to the SC and if they do not hear the case or hear it and do not revert to privious rulings before the one on appeal then it does not revert to the orgininal rulings you cite but to the latest one and that then becomes the final ruling. But I understand you wish it not to be this way so you just keep throwing out more and more grbage hoping to bury the truth.

      • http://naver samurai

        Look at the source again Kang.

        http://www.godfatherpolitics.com/3835/more-challenges-to-obama-eligibility/

        Neeeeed to be making that popping sound! FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • TML

        “Neeeeed to be making that popping sound!”

        I really don’t know why, but this reminds me of Czar Paul I of Russia, son of Catherine the Great, lol

        Peace out, and god bless

      • TML
      • http://naver samurai

        Thanks for the video TML. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. I think I understand what you are getting at, but I personally know the man in question. This is why I responded the way I did. Have a good one.

    • Joe H

      TML,
      Odumberers mother had left the US and declared citizenship in a different nation. She had only lived here a short while before he was born, therefore she didn’t meet the requiremnts of living here seven years after her 21st birthday!

      • TML

        Joe says, “Odumberers mother had left the US and declared citizenship in a different nation.”

        Evidence, please?

      • Joe H

        she left the US with Odumberers father, and did not live in the US long enough after returning after her twentyfirst birthday to declare her son a naturalborn citizen!! She was NOt abroad with her mother or father, but HER Husband!! she went to live with HIM in HIS homeland. This in turn, voided any claim to citizenship for obummer!!

      • TML

        Joe says, “she left the US with Odumberers father, and did not live in the US long enough after returning after her twentyfirst birthday to declare her son a naturalborn citizen!! She was NOt abroad with her mother or father, but HER Husband!! she went to live with HIM in HIS homeland. This in turn, voided any claim to citizenship for obummer!!”

        “Losing your citizenship

        For a natural-born citizen, losing your citizenship is actually quite difficult. The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will, but there are certain actions a citizen can take which are assumed to be a free-will decision that constitutes a voluntary renunciation of the citizenship.

        Moving to another country for an extended period of time does not constitute an act that presumes renunciation.”

        http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

        Joe says, ” returning after her twentyfirst birthday”

        Excuse me? What age was she when she gave birth to Obama?

      • http://naver samurai

        You’ve made some interesting points TML, but you forget that Obama bin Laden attended muslim schools in Indonesia. To do this, you had to be muslim and a citizen of Indonesia. If he attended the schools there, he would of had to renounce, or his mother renounce, their citizenship, right? How did Obama bin Laden go to Pakistan in 1982? Americans were not allowed to go their at that time, so which nation’s passport did he use? Indonesia? Kenya? Briatin? I’m not attacking you, just trying to point out some facts. Also, if he is a citizen, why spend millions and take the time to hide his past? Why the fake birth certificates? Doesn’t he think the people need to hear the truth? Will he wait till he is defeated this November to let people know the truth of who or what he really is? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • castaway

    You need to question , do people really care about where this man came from? It sure does not seem to matter to them, nor does it matter what the constitution says. It appears this is all about re-inventing America, any way they (status quo) can achieve it.

    I also think there is really “big Money” coming in from overseas, for the purpose of causing a great change here.

    It is very scary to think what the future holds for our country. I”am beginning to wonder if we are done, as a republic, and if our constitution will be rewritten, and our bill of rights canceled as well.

    Also It agitates me to no end what is being done to Ron Paul. He is basically being treated like dirt. The media totally dismisses him, and only mentions him in passing, like he is being humored. Then on top of that they try to twist everything he says to make him appear like he knows nothing at all. He is one of the few honest people in the government.

    • TML

      “Also It agitates me to no end what is being done to Ron Paul.”

      It might be interesting to note that Ron Paul does not hold the view that Obama is ineligible.

      In a letter from Ron Paul in response to the question of eligibility, it reads:

      —————-
      From: Rep. Paul
      To: Redacted
      Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:39 PM
      Subject: Reply from Rep. Paul

      Dear Mr. Sorensen:

      Thank you for contacting my office regarding Barack Obama. My staff has researched the issue of his citizenship. Our research has led us to conclude that the state of Hawaii has issued a valid birth certificate showing that Barack Obama was born in the United States.

      Of course, I remain committed to fighting for limited, constitutional government, and I am actively opposing President Obama’s big government agenda. Thank you again for contacting my office. Please feel free to do so in the future with any other questions, comments, or suggestions.

      Sincerely,

      Ron Paul
      ————-

      Therefore he calls the argument of Obama’s eligibility irrelevant, obviously rejecting the definition of natural born citizen to require two parents if born on American soil.

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        TML, how convienient…of course Rep. Paul did not address the issue of “natural born citizen” as you can see in the letter…here is the “response” letter that was sent back to Rep. Paul.
        ____________________________________________________
        And my response to him was:

        From: Redacted
        To: Rep. Paul
        Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 8:45 AM
        Subject: Re: Reply from Rep. Paul

        Dear Representative Ron Paul:

        A Natural Born Citizen is one that is not only born on American Soil but also of two CITIZEN PARENTS. Obama’s parents were NOT CITIZENS. In addition, Obama was adopted, name changed to Barry Soetoro and given Foreign Citizenship. Obama is NOT Constitutionally qualified to hold the Office of President of the United States.

        The Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth that Obama has provided have been determined tobe forgeries. In addition, Obama is using a stolen Social Security Number today which was also used on his forged Selective Service Application.

        Please correct me if I am wrong but I thought Identity Theft, using another’s Social Security Number and Forgery were Criminal Felonies. Certainly Representative Ron Paul and your Public Service Tax Paid Staff wouldn’t be involved in a criminal cover-up?

        I am anxiously awaiting your response.
        __________________________________________
        That said, I’m only concerned about Obama’s eligibility for POTUS and CIC. Because Obama’s father was never a citizen, just like Rubio’s father, Obama should never have been allowed to run for or become POTUS.

      • Al

        Please note that Hawai’i is not in America. It is a United State of America but not “in” or “on” America. Hawai’i is much like the Philippines: Pacific floor seamounts that protrude above water level.
        Puerto Rico is not in/on continental America but is a Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico island and is part of the American continent – as is Greenland (which is held by Denmark).
        Paul’s campaign does not want to get involved in this controversy as their resources have limits. Barry Soetoro is the de facto president for the moment.
        The Hawai’ian certificate of live birth that has been published is NOT a “birth certificate” as the term is meant in other States. The State of Hawai’i also issued conventional birth certificates in 1961. See Hawai’i statute [§338-17.8] “Certificates for children born out of State.” This is the same statute as in 1961.
        Even legitimate (as far as being issued by proper authority) birth certificates are subject to rebuttal upon due proof.
        A birth certificate is proof of legal jurisdiction (location) of birth, not citizenship. Americans born abroad to American parents are natural born citizens Else they would all have to apply for naturalization just like noncitizens born abroad. Thousands (perhaps millions) of Americans have been born to American citizen parents in other countries.

      • TML

        Jeff H says, “Rep. Paul did not address the issue of “natural born citizen” as you can see in the letter”

        That is correct, he did not address it… stating that the Hawaii Birth Certificate, in research conducted by his staff on the issue of Obama’s citizenship, was concluded to be valid. Accepting that his birth in Hawaii, with one parent a citizen, qualifies as eligibility.

        Jeff H says, “…here is the “response” letter that was sent back to Rep. Paul.”

        And we will notice that no reply was reported to have been given to such response letter.

        Jeff H says, “Because Obama’s father was never a citizen, just like Rubio’s father, Obama should never have been allowed to run for or become POTUS.”

        So, Obama’s mother’s citizenship means nothing to you?

      • TML

        Al says, “Please note that Hawai’i is not in America.”

        Uh… I disagree

      • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

        TML, you ask “Obama’s mother’s citizenship means nothing to you?” Obama’s mother’s citizenship is not the issue here…it is Obama’s father’s non-citizenship that settles the question.

        The founders feared, a foreign influence might sneak into the administration of our government and corrupt it. They required in the Constitution that the highest office in our government be held by no one but a “natural born Citizen”, one with “exclusive allegiance.”

        Rep. John Bingham, the abolitionist Representative from Ohio “considered the father” of the 14th Amendment, described the definition of “natural born Citizen” during Congressional discussions prior to the 14th Amendment.

        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 (mother and father)owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 1862 (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862).

        Obama’s father held allegiance to Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth.

      • http://naver samurai

        I agree with you Jeff H. Both you and TML made valid points, but I agree that it is not his mother that is in question. It is his father and Obama bin Laden that are in question here. His father was Kenyan and Obama bin Laden is either Indonesian or Kenyan, ergo not meeting the requirements as set forth in the Constitution. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • GRusling

    Thanks for the article Bob, but we all know it won’t stop the endless blabbing of the chattering class, who revel in attempting to obscure the obvious…

  • http://google john p.

    i think congress and the senate . better do a investigation in to
    Obama . to make sure he was born in the united states .
    and to do this be for the elections . and if it turns out that
    he was not born in the u s . he should be dealt with now .

  • Michael J.

    Dear Bob Livingston,
    Is this source used anywhere by the signers of The Constitution as an expressed definition of the term “Natural Born Citizen”?

    If not, how can we be sure that The Supreme Court, who will ultimately have the last word on this will use the same source definition?

    • http://povertylinge Smilee

      The Supreme Court can choose not to hear it and then the lower court rulings will be the final say and as of now the only court rulings say he is a natural born citizen and thus eligable to be on the ballot. Few experts think this will happen unless there is differing interpetations by the lower courts and so far they have come to the same conclusion,

      • Michael J.

        Smilee,
        The SCOTUS has already ruled on the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”

        Writing for the unanimous majority in the 1875 SC case Minor v Happersett, Chief Justice Waite stated:

        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. (3)

        Minor goes on to state:

        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. (3)

        So Minor made it clear that “natural born citizens” are born in the United States to parents who are US citizens. And those born in the US to parents who may not be citizens, may or may not be citizens themselves. Note there is NO question of “natural born” status in this second example, but merely citizenship.

        In addition:
        There is now some question as to the ruling handed down by Muslim Judge Malihi, a Clinton installment, as to the evidence on which his decision was made. At any rate he at no time pronounced Obama to be a natural born citizen, only that Obama was born in America.

        Thats what you get for quoting Snopes, ya Dope.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Michael,
        First I did not read or quote Snopes, I did read the court ruling and this is my own conclusion. Courts do at times rule different that previous courts and if the Supreme Court does not hear it or hear it again and overrule the current court rulings then your take will then be flushed down the toilet and the current rulings will be the final say and anything you think or say to the contrary becomes pure garbage. Most experts I have read think the SC will not hear the case. Eat your heart out but the truth will expose you as the JOKE YOU REALLY ARE.

      • Michael J.

        Smilee,
        The 1875 ruling has precedence unless overturned.

      • Michael J.

        Smilee said:

        “I did read the court ruling and this is my own conclusion.”

        That’s where you went wrong.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Only if the current supreme court says so and they have to hear it first to do that. The latet ruling has to stand unless the current SC says different. Your confused.

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Michael J. says:
        February 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm
        Smilee said:

        “I did read the court ruling and this is my own conclusion.”

        That’s where you went wrong.
        _______________________

        WHY, it is getting it from the horses mouth so to speak and not from what you would like it to be rather that what it really is. You simply do not understand how the Constituion and the SC and other courts work. That’s were you went wrong!

      • Michael J.

        Smilee,
        One valid explanation is all you get.

        I think you were bucked off of that horse and landed on your head.

      • Joe H

        Michael J,
        you made one tiny mistake which I will try to correct. Had smelly landed on his head, NO HARM!!! Had he landed on his A$$ he would have a brain concussion!!!! We ALL know where HIS brains are!!

      • http://naver samurai

        First, Joe H., D’oh! :-). Very true! Very true indeed! Second, who the h*** are you to say who is a joke and who isn’t smilee (Kang)? You know the old saying, “If you have nothing nie to say, then don’t say anything at all.” Understand? Haven’t made that popping sound yet? There are enough facts and sources on this thread to prove you wrong and then some, so get lost. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

    • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

      Dear Michael J.,

      Beyond the reference I cited by Franklin I know of know other. But I obviously have not gone through all of the Founders notes and commentary.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

  • raw

    wound’t that qualify every Native American Indian? or for that matter every mexican born here but unable to speak spanish…

    • raw

      oops – i meant english

    • Joe H

      raw,
      While the Native Americans at the time were occupants of this country, they had not sworn an allegience to this country. therefore, till they DID they were not considered citizens of the NATION.

      • http://naver samurai

        Historically accurate. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • castaway

    Their parents both need to be born here also I thought. That should make him illegal.

  • Beverly Teboe

    Both of my children were born in the Federal Republic of Germany. I was stationed there in the US Army. At the time I registered their birth’s with the Dept of State I was told that my children would never be able to hold the office of President because they were born on foreign soil. They were still citizens of the US, but they derived their citizenship through their parents. Natural born, means exactly that. Both parents must be US citizens, and you must be born on American soil. I don’t get why this concept is so hard to understand. BHO is not qualified to hold the office of president. He could’ve been born on July 4th in the White House and he still would not be eligible for president as his father was not a US citizen. We have a congress that is totally gutless and refuses to uphold the laws in this land.

    • http://povertylinge Smilee

      In 2009 and again earlier this month two courts have ruled that if you are born on American soil you are a natural born citizen. If you are born on military installations when stationed there you are considered as being born on American soil. Sounds like you got bad information. This was the controversy over McCain in 2008 as he was born on a military facility run by the US and his dad was stationed there and he was found to be a natural born citizen.

    • Joe H

      Beverly,
      If your children were born ON POST, they were indeed, born on American soil!! This was covered in the case of McCain!!

    • http://naver samurai

      If they were born on post, yes. If they were born off post, no. When you gave birth to them, were you on or off post? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Chris

    If you were born in the United States from someone who is here illegally, then “you” are “not” an american.

    • Michael J.

      Chris,
      The individuals you describe, born on American soil to illegal alien parents are commonly reffered to as “Anchor Babies” which in no way, shape or form is a nautical term, but their presence is certainly rocking the boat.

    • Al

      Go read the 14th Amendment, which for all the doubt concerning it is regarded by the Supremes as a valid part of the Constitution.

      • http://naver samurai

        The 14th Amendment dealt with former slavs and their children, so anchor babies are not covered by the 14th Amendment. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        Sammie

        Wrong again! That was the motivation to create the 14th amendment but they wrote it to include everyone and made no mention of it just being for slaves and their children, Re-read it, just maybe it will set your biased thinking straight but I will not be holding my breath

      • http://naver samurai

        It was written to give citizenship to former slave and their children. It also delt with how they were treated. You can’t add everything into that amendment, since it would change the meaning of it. Besides, it would not cover marriage, benefits, or behaviors. It dealt with race and the situation of former slaves. I suggest you read it again. Both you and you holier than thou attitude. You lose again, what else is new. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Winnie

    You of European descents, your forefathers were foriegn at the time they appointed themselves citizens. From what I see, all indigenous peoples of the countries of the world have been pushed out and the “superior” European took command and followed their failed government ways of their country. North and South American went thousands of years without destroying or polluting the land we lived on. President Obama is more the indigenous people’s President the you Europeans descendants. All past presidents have been the whiteman’s great white father.

    • Al

      Winnie, you are historically correct but that has little to do with points of law. Every nation has pushed out at least some other people who were “in the way.” Perhaps some Eskimos (Inuit) or Lapps are exceptions as they were nomadic peoples whose nation was not geographic.
      We white folks stole America “fair and square” and we have found that distant European relatives were in/on America before the “Indians” (Mongols, Sino-Tibetans?) began to come over from Asia.
      All men are of one blood and all are related to one another. We find ourselves on the same planet with nowhere else to go that will support us.

      • Michael J.

        Al,
        So by following your line of logic, The Indians stole America from the Wooly Mammoths, Saber Tooth Cats, Giant Sloths, Short faced Bears and so on who met their demise shortly after the Bering Strait invaders showed up? Or was it the aforementioned extinct mammals that stole America from the Dinosaurs right after the Chicxulub rock showed up?

    • Michael J.

      Winnie said:

      “President Obama is more the indigenous people’s President than you Europeans”

      Fine, I hope they keep him.

    • http://naver samurai

      Whiteman> Great white father? Must be a lib as the classic liberal strategy of playing the race card has been done. What does his race have to do with anything? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • JRM

    I have a suggestion. Why can we the people form a class action lawsuit and sue Obama in a high court, producing irrefutable concrete evidence of the definition of “Natural Born Citizen”?
    Why can’t we the people form class action lawsuits holding irresponsible politicians responsible for the debts they are running up and for the frauds of taking money from special interests groups?

    It is our right to sue anyone at anytime for anything as long as it’s legitimate and there is sufficient evidence to uphold the lawsuit. If we could sue them in Washington DC, we can hold them personally resposible for their own actions, proving fraud and punishing them. Then the corruption would stop because everyone would know, there’s a penalty to pay for dishonesty and corruption, just the same as there would be if the politicians were employees of a company or corporation The United States of America would be the “company” and the politicians in a sense are “employees” of the people.

    Do you agree?

    • Joe H

      JRM,
      you will find a little known fact that you FIRST have to get PERMISSION to sue the US government!! This is, of course only to citizens!!!

  • http://none jim

    Obama and Rubio aren’t US citizens and the Moon is made of green cheese

  • http://none jim

    HAWAII IS NOT IN THE USA? ROFLMAO. AN ARGUMENT LIKE THAT MAKES SOME CONSERVATIVES LOOK LIKE KOOKS

  • Pofed

    Vote obama out and we will not have to worry about him…..

  • Bobbi

    Nice posr. Of couese, we had considered this very compelling, and, it is. However, we know now that the Supreme Court fave a legally binding definition in Minir v. Happersett (1875). Og course, http://justia.com. Scrubbed their archives of thar case, to help put the usurper in office.
    Uncovered by diligence of Leo Donofrio, Esq.

  • Bobbi

    Sirry for the spelling errors. From my Ipod.

  • Thinking About

    I would like for the basis of this article to have the section of the Constitution listed. Facts based on the true Constitution will solve this simple problem.

  • http://AOL Mike

    I recall President Obama saying once, when speaking of the restrictions in our Constitution, that if we went strictly by the Constitution he could not be president. Maybe we should ask him what he meant by that. I’m trying to find a youtube video of him saying that, until I do I’m sure no one will believe it. After he said that he took a long pause before continueing…as though he was thinking…Oooops, what did I just say.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.a.deal David A Deal

    First of all this quote is that from a book written by a NON-American and was ONLY used as a guideline by the founders and our version may not have been meant to be identical but only parallel this concept. That is part of the problem with the inflexible, narrow-minded views of those on the right. It is also mysogynistic in it’s premise when it puts ALL of the emphasis upon the birthplace of the father. It disrespects the equality of the mother. Also in the case of Barack Obama his father was an absentee one at best and the mother and maternal grandparents were by far the greatest influences in his life.

    • http://gravatar.com/hattles JeffH

      David, if you have in fact done your research…you show yourself to be as narrow minded as those you accuse…comprehend… :)

      • http://povertylinge Smilee

        It is because of your narrow mindedness that you are not able to understand and comprehand David’s post. He is so much more open minded than you.

      • http://naver samurai

        Ah yes, the personal attack. Classic liberal strategy, eh smilee (Kang)? If you did some research, you would see what we patriots have said and posted on this entire thread are factual and cannot be proven wrong. Since Obama bin Laden’s father was not a citizen, he is not eligible to be president. I still can’t wait till Indiana’s Supreme Court brings up the question of his eligibility again. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.a.deal David A Deal

          When someone starts using terms like Obama bin Laden they have lost ALL credibility in the first place because they are showing their total disrespect to the person as well as the office of President as well as showing their completely slanted and narrow-minded viewpoint. Loved the comment about American Indians. I don’t believe they ever bestowed us citizenship though I use US loosely because I have 132nd Indian heritage. Would that qualify me to run??? I am from Indiana as well and can attest to the general right wing backwardness of the state. I was shocked but elated when Obama won Indiana, so much so that I got an Indiana issued vanity plate (OBAMA 1) partly so my extremist right wing foreman had to see it on my car every day. OH how I love free speech though when you have a dictatorial bully for a foreman he will try to stifle your free speech anyway but that was one thing he couldn’t control. The thing that makes me sick is the endless attempts by the right to regurgitate already settled issues. Talk about a true sore loser mentality. Let’s just MOVEON.com!!!

      • http://naver samurai

        OK David? If you are from Indiana, then tell us what part. If you are lying, my wife and I will know in a heartbeat. You talk about slanted and narrow minded viewpoint? Care to look at this thread and see how many others have the same viewpoint as I do? Oh, I see, you sound like smilee. What? Are you two brothers? So you and smilee come here with your superiority complexes, but both of you can just leave and let we patriots get back to saving this country. Already settled issues? As long as his birth certificate is fake and he keeps his past hidden, the issue will never be closed. Neeeeed to be making that popping sound. You and your ilk is what is wrong with this country. So both you and smilee (Maybe the same person) can take a hike. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

        P.S. BTW, I do respect the office, position, and responsibilities of the President, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect the person. Look at how many of your ilk talk about Bush, Reagan, etc., so why don’t you tell them the same nonsense you told me? Neeeeed to be making that popping sound.

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.a.deal David A Deal

          First of all I’m a Liberal who relies on facts and logic so I don’t lie, I leave that to Right wingers. Watch the Bill Maher special where he talks about those on the right being inside a protective condum bubble which keeps facts from penetrating. Then there is the fact that smille and I are in the moinority. Well we are discussing this on a clearly right wing conservative website DUH! Copernicus, Darwin, Galilleo, Christopher Columbus,and many other great thinkers who were RIGHT, not on the right were in the minority. “One man with courage makes a majority”! A quote I once read that is my credo. I live in NE Indiana, near Shipshewana in the middle of one of the largest Amish communities if n ot the largest. I can’t keep my car or cycle clean because of all the horseshit on my side of the county which is 50% Amish. I am an ND football fan despite being an atheist. A Bears fan and an IU basketball fan. I live an hour drive from ND South Bend and an hour from Ft Wayne. I was born in Elkhart. I live in possibly the most conservative county in a very conservative state. Oh and Amish men grow there beards to show they a married. They meet every two weeks for church at a different farm rotating services within their membership. Our representatifve is ultra-conservative tea partier Marlin Stutzman.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.a.deal David A Deal

    I respected Reagan and Bush as people doing what they felt was right. I think they were misguided and short-sighted. I must admit with Bush being an oilman and Cheney’s connections with Halliburton I feel it was a great conflict of interest for these kinds of people to be determining war esp0ecially in the middleeast which greatly benefitted their cronies and hurt the American people and economy by destablizing the middleeast raising oil prices. Many factors affect oil prices but intentionally starting a war in Iraq where we had NO business or justification was insane. The Valerie Plame outing incident I felt was an act of treason on the part of the Bush administration because they were not happy that her husband wouldn’t play ball with the administrations desires to trump up weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to waste a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives and further inflame the Muslim world for interferring in their countries affairs. Sadly the Muslims are admittedly even more extreme than our own extremist Christian elements. They will never like or appreciate our efforts to bring democracy to their region and part of what makeds democracy work is a limited interference by religion in running a varied and greatly secular country. Their region is so deeply entrenched in their religious fervor that democracy has no chance there.
    Part of our problem politically is that respect has fallen to the wayside. The concept of meeting in the middle or agreeing to disagree without such vitriolic animosity has disappeared, fueled by the likes of the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Becks of America who seek to divide us for their own selfish egos and pocket books.

  • Jack T.

    If smilee wasn’t so pathetic, they would actually be funny… but, since people like smilee are seduced by the mainstream media who rarely tell the truth or at least the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I guess we should expect people like them. They can’t think for themselves, so they have to rely on someone. It is just too bad they choose the very people who are targeting people like smilee to spread their lies to.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.a.deal David A Deal

      The mainstream media is neutral and delivers the news. It’s the likes of FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and their nilk that distort and lie. Even Bill Maher, Colbert, and John Stewart are better sources to get the news from as far as political related items and they are hilariously creative and funny while delivering the facts.

      • Jack T.

        All of them are about the same… there is no neutral mainstream media. You think automatically that I like Fox, but I don’t… your mistake. I am sorry that you are tricked by them, but if they weren’t following the agendas that they are, then everyone would know of events that support horrible agendas like the Folsom Street Fair, that support organizations like NAMBLA- North American Man-Boy Love Association – who say it is alright to threaten a child in order to have sex with them and it is alright if they are too scared to tell on the predator because ‘they must like it’. But because they are not neutral, most people have not clue as to what or where the Folsom Street Fair takes place. You are definitely tricked more than you will ever know as long as you keep believing in the mainstream media. The way they bring you the news is they go to the world news teletype [i.e. Associated Press], mark through the news they can’t tell according to their ‘bosses’ who have been told what they can and can’t report to prevent ‘hurting’ the popular agenda of the times, then report only on the things they are allowed. I know this because I have worked with them… have you? I have seen cover-ups galore over the years, just so they could support things like the homosexual agenda, and it is the same all over the mainstream media world. And no matter what you say in your ignorance of the facts, I still know that it is true. I am just saddened by the fact that there are very many who are self-tricked by not looking for yourselves or listening to people like me who know of these lies being propagated by the mainstream media. I have no reason to lie to you… they do… monetary support, as well as government support.

        • http://www.facebook.com/david.a.deal David A Deal

          I work for a small town newspaper and my Boss and foreman are conservatives so they suppress certain things but mostly avoid things they can that will piss off our readers and advertisers because we are small town. I know about NAMBLA, saw an episode about it on South Park. It was freakin’ hilarious. I am offended that you speak of pediphiles and homosexuaols in the same breath. My daughter is a lesbian and is a FAR better person than most any conservative I’ve ever met. Some of the stuff the mainstream media doesn’t cover is both too disgusting to put on prime time tv and too extremist, conspiracy theory, whacko, paranoia to be taken seriously.

      • http://naver samurai

        If your daughter is a lesbo, then you should tell her the error of her ways and get her back into church. BTW, you still haven’t said where in Indiana you are from, so why don’t you answer the question? A small town newspaper? Which one? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

  • Jack T.

    David A Deal – You have just given another example of what I was talking about… you try to cover up the facts for those who are unlearned as of yet of this very offensive group by trying to make it seem as if it were just some side note of a degenerate cartoon. Matt Foreman, the [at least former] head of the Gay & Lesbian Task Force in Washington,D.C. was bragging about all this that they are doing now more than 10 yrs ago before most avg citizen had heard anything about the Marriage Amendment. He bragged back then in national and international publications of how he was leading the attack on the ‘powers that be’ to get laws passed to the point that homosexuals [or anyone else] could have sex and/or marry a child/minor, a beast, or an inanimate object without the penalty of law and receive money and/or benefits from the government, and how they would make the life of any leader/person who stood in their way a ‘miserable hell’. There is nothing you can do to change this fact. It already happened, probably before you were engaged in conversation about it. Everything he claimed he/they would do, they have done and/or are proceeding to do now, as we speak. Anyone who wants to know about them can simply look them up on most any search engine, although some like Yahoo or Google finds them so offensive that it is easier to reach the cached page of their website on them. http://www.nambla.org is the address for anyone who wants to see for themselves that it is true. They say things like ‘it is alright to have sex with a child, even under threat of life, if they don’t tell on you because they must like it’. They are constantly changing their page so I can’t tell you exactly the links to use, but I believe if you want to you can find just what I am telling you. Don’t take naysayers like David A Deal’s misdirection for it. I have been following this for a long time because I was one of those children who saw it from the inside to start with, and I have been fighting against them for years, when almost no one knew of them. And you, David A Deal, are the one who is offensive with your attempts at intimidation toward anyone like me who would try to warn others about the trap they have been ensnared into by people/news organizations like you.

  • Jack T.

    David A Deal – Tell me how many gatherings like the Folsom Street Fair, where 10′s to 100′s of thousands of homosexual/degenerate people gather, that the mainstream media will not extensively tell the public of? This ‘Fair’ occurs in the district belonging to Nancy Pelosi, in San Francisco, and there are many videos/pictures to prove what they do there… things like group masturbation in front of the public stores, masturbation onto people’s heads walking by from second story windows, S&M performances in the streets, etc., etc., and Nancy Pelosi along with the Mayor, will not let the Police arrest anyone for any of these things that are happening in front of and to children, women, and men, who are simply trying to shop at a store they normally frequent. Explain this as well, pawn of the naysayers David A Deal. You need to open your eyes if indeed you really don’t know of these things. I hope you truly are innocent of knowing these things, with the things you are saying to anyone like me who is sincerely concerned with the many who are entrapped by the mainstream media’s cover-up of these travesties. I know that there are many who feel sorry for the ‘poor little homosexuals’ because Oprah told them to, and I truly feel sorry for them that they would support these ‘poor little homosexuals’ because they believe the lies spread by people like you. Your intimidation of those of us who fight against these lies to inform the uninformed, does not and will not stop me and those like me from letting people in on their entrapment that people like you trap them in. You simply make us more determined to warn them of your lies. It is no fun being raped by them as a little child, and THAT beside your little brother, while you look up and see silhouettes of those raping you and your little brother, while they are laughing and talking about ‘my turn, it’s my turn’. I will keep trying to stop what I know happened to me and many of my friends, both female and male. Many of these poor people I have known and been involved with, that haven’t killed themselves over it, are still suffering greatly from what was done to them, by those you are defending. I thank God that He pulled me from it, and made me realize it was not ‘my fault’ like most who go through it believe, after being told so by their molesters. Deny it or help stop it… it is your conscience[if you still have one] that you will have to deal with the rest of your life, and then for eternity.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.