Define "Natural Born Citizen"

[bojo68]

Hmm, yeah.

An idea I've had about the original is that it might list no father, which would be interesting. It would get around the 'dual citizenship at birth' issue, but not without ignoring other information.

From what I've seen about her, it would have been pretty hard to KNOW who the father was, which makes this guess seem like it may be likely. Of course, we can find out who the father is now, if he's still alive.

 

[Elwar]

Um, yes it does. Are you saying his mother renounced her citizenship?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

Read this case. This girl's parents were both Swedish citizens, they had her in the U.S. They moved back to Sweden, then she came back to the US when she was an adult and the Supreme Court upheld that she was a natural born citizen.

 

[Pericles]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

Read this case. This girl's parents were both Swedish citizens, they had her in the U.S. They moved back to Sweden, then she came back to the US when she was an adult and the Supreme Court upheld that she was a natural born citizen.

Good case - born in the US = native born, but I did notice this as part of the decision:

"The statute does, however, make a distinction between the burden imposed upon the person born in the United States of foreign parents and the person born abroad of American parents. With respect to the latter, section 6 of the Act of March 2, 1907, lays down the requirement [307 U.S. 325, 346] that, as a condition to the protection of the United States, the individual must, upon reaching the age of 18, record at an American consulate an intention to remain a citizen of the United States, and must also take an oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining his majority. "

 

[libertarian4321]

If you bone up on British law, you'll find that their equivalent of citizenship is referred to as a "subject", because it's a monarchy.

That is not correct. "Subject" and "citizen" are not the same under British law.

One can be a British subject without being a British citizen.

My wife was a British subject before she became a US citizen. She was not a British citizen- there is a huge difference.

As the law stood from 1949 to 1982, those born in British colonies (including Kenya in 1961) were British subjects, but NOT British citizens- they had a lesser form of citizenship which did not include the full rights accorded British citizens. Hence, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, but was NOT a "British citizen."

Also, at that time, citizens of the Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, NZ, etc) were British subjects, but were citizens of their own country.

 

[BeFranklin]

From what I've seen about her, it would have been pretty hard to KNOW who the father was, which makes this guess seem like it may be likely. Of course, we can find out who the father is now, if he's still alive.

Obama is The One.. the wrong one and we're all going to die

 

[Zera]

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

HISTORICAL BREAKTHROUGH - PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH

Posted in Uncategorized on December 6, 2008 by naturalborncitizen December 6, 2008 6:36 PM
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880. Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.
How ironic that the allegations started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President”, have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.
Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject. It was bunk. It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont. But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.
That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.
We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.
Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880. His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP. His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification. He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated. It was ratified in 1867. In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee. He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.
He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.
CHESTER’S LIES
The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves. It’s an exhaustive reference. Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible. It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history. He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)
“Gentleman Boss” establishes, on page 4, that Chester Arthur’s father William was born in Ireland, 1796, and emigrated to Canada in 1818 or 1819. His mother Malvina was born in Vermont and his parents eloped in Canada in 1821. They had their first child, Regina, in Dunham, Canada on March 8, 1822.
By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.
From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:
“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”
Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.
In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 - when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada - and March 1824 - when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.
On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.
In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman .
It was very convenient for Arthur that Hinman kept the focus on the extraordinary and false claim - that Arthur was born abroad - while the more subtle and true eligibility issue stayed hidden in plain site.
FATEFUL FACTS
I contacted Greg Dehler a few days ago after finding a reference in his Chester Arthur biography which said William Arthur became a citizen in 1843. I wrote to Greg and asked him about the reference. As fate would have it, Mr. Dehler, after checking his notes, wrote back to me to say that he got it from Thomas Reeves’ book, “Gentleman Boss”.
I went to the library the next day and devoured the Reeves book. But the reference to William’s naturalization was not there. Greg also knew I was interested in the Hinman scandal and pointed me to the Brooklyn Eagle search engine from the Brooklyn public library.
I began poking around and discovered a few of the lies mentioned above.
Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.
About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:
Leo,
Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?
Greg
I almost fell off my chair when I downloaded the William Arthur naturalization PDF and was staring at the shifting sands of history.
Chester Arthur had something to hide.
He had all of his papers burned which was very odd for a President.
Arthur lied about his mother’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s time in Canada. He lied about his father’s age plus where and when he got off the boat from Ireland. By obscuring his parents’ personal history he curtailed the possibility that anybody might discover he was born many years before his father had naturalized.
When Chester runs for VP, Hinman comes along essentially demanding to see Chester’s birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States. This causes a minor scandal easily thwarted by Chester, because Chester was born in Vermont…but at the same time, the fake scandal provides cover for the real scandal.
Is this the twilight zone?
William Arthur was not a naturalized citizen at the time of Chester Arthur’s birth, and therefore Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and not eligible to be Vice President or President.
Chester Arthur lied about his father’s emigration to Canada and the time his mother spent there married to William. Some sixty years later, Chester lied about all of this and kept his candidacy on track. Back then it would have been virtually impossible to see through this, especially since Arthur’s father had died in 1875 and had been a United States citizen for thirty-two years.
And without knowledge of his father’s time in Canada, or the proper timeline of events, potential researchers in 1880 would have been hard pressed to even know where to start.
Reeves proved that Arthur changed his birth year from 1829 to 1830. I don’t know if that would have protected recorded information. It’s another lie. I just don’t know what it means.
Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency. He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.




after these findings leo & cort added a supplement to their case & brought it to SCOTUS ...it has now been distributed as well.


http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm



Dec 9 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)

Yeah, I dunno if I trust a site that's completely dedicated to getting Obama not to be president at this point.

 

[BeFranklin]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=307&page=325

Read this case. This girl's parents were both Swedish citizens, they had her in the U.S. They moved back to Sweden, then she came back to the US when she was an adult and the Supreme Court upheld that she was a natural born citizen.

No they weren't swedish citizens, they were naturalized American citizens at the time, so this doesn't say anything about any of the various topics we've discussed on
the thread. Says it in the first line

Anyone whose parents were naturalized Americans are natural born under any view. Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't eligible to run for president, but his children would be.

 

[BeFranklin]

14th Amendment Citizenship: Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof

A copy of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th Amendment was intended to say the same thing, but to put it into the Constitution. It makes clear that "subject to the jurisidiction of" in the 14th Amendment is the same thing as "not subject to any foreign power" in the Civil Rights Act.

Obama, by being a British and Kenyan Citizen at birth, was subject to a foreign power and not subject to the United States, therefore could not get citizenship this way. We've looked at what natural born means, and those who wanted to look it up in Blackstone have done so by now. This is a look at a different area. Under the 14th, Obama wasn't born under the jurisdiction of the United States as this amendment was actually written and intended to mean. He was subject to a foreign power, and ineligible.

Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Theocrat]

It's Easy as "1, 2, 3"

All my life, I have known natural born citizen to mean that you were born on U.S. soil. But now, it doesn't? I don't understand how one parent being born in the U.K. makes one a British subject, even if his mother was an American and he was born in America. Even our 21st president, Chester A. Arthur, had a father born in Ireland. Hell, there were even rumors that he himself was born in Canada, but they were apparently never sure.

I don't see how what I've known to be the definition of a natural born citizen all my life is suddenly different since Obama won.

This is what "natural born citizen" means. Put it all together, and you have a phrase which Obama cannot even understand in all his Harvard Lawness.

 

[Elwar]

No they weren't swedish citizens, they were naturalized American citizens at the time, so this doesn't say anything about any of the various topics we've discussed on
the thread. Says it in the first line

Aww man, I didn't see that they were naturalized.

That sucks, I thought that that pretty much cleared it up. The Supreme Court definitely needs to define natural born citizen.

 

[phoenixrising]

Yeah, I dunno if I trust a site that's completely dedicated to getting Obama not to be president at this point.

no that is not the pt of the site....if you read the entry for today you will see a recap from an older entry...it has not been about being dedicated in not allowing barky to be POTUS....it's been about "returning the election to the Constitution"

 

[phoenixrising]

Aww man, I didn't see that they were naturalized.

That sucks, I thought that that pretty much cleared it up. The Supreme Court definitely needs to define natural born citizen.

try this...a part of todays blog entry (read in entirety here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/)

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

 

[BeFranklin]

try this...a part of todays blog entry (read in entirety here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/)

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:
§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

Bravo. I saved it.

Emer (Emerich or Emmerich) de Vattel (April 25, 1714 - December 28, 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He was born in Couvet in Neuchatel, Switzerland in 1714 and died in 1767 of edema. He was largely influenced in his philosophy by Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff and strove to integrate their ideas into the legal and political system. He is most famous for his 1758 work Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns). This work was his claim to fame and won him enough prestige to be appointed as a councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.

Vattel's masterpiece was largely influenced by The Law of Nations by Christian Wolff. His work began, in fact, by translating Wolff's text from its Latin into the vernacular and adding his own thoughts. The work was also heavily influenced by Gottfried Leibniz and Hugo Grotius. Focused largely on the rights and obligations of citizens and states, the work also had ramifications for Just War Theory as it outlined international diplomacy as we now know it. Vattel elucidated the "Golden Rule of Sovereigns": One cannot complain when he is treated as he treats others.

 

[bojo68]

Nice to see some informed opinions in here as compared to the simplistic rantings of "he was born in america, therefor he's an american citizen".

 

[Elwar]

I would say that the best way to get any headway with this is to challenge in court any law passed by Obama if charged. But the judge would just throw that argument out the window and throw the book at you.

I'll probably try it anyway when I'm thrown in jail for supporting freedom without also supporting socialism under some new fairness doctrine for all.

 

[hotbrownsauce]

A Natural Born Citizen by U.S. Code is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html which I believe is the most up to date version.


As for the intent of the meaning behind Natural Born only one thing can be certain. No one can be a Natural Born Citizen who was fully under jurisdiction of another country who then moved here. The laws describing Natural Born vs Citizen were not set in stone to my understanding. Perhaps more information can be dug up on who wrote that part of the constitution and the discussion around it.

 

[BeFranklin]

A Natural Born Citizen by U.S. Code is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html which I believe is the most up to date version.


As for the intent of the meaning behind Natural Born only one thing can be certain. No one can be a Natural Born Citizen who was fully under jurisdiction of another country who then moved here. The laws describing Natural Born vs Citizen were not set in stone to my understanding. Perhaps more information can be dug up on who wrote that part of the constitution and the discussion around it.

After several of us have quoted from the legal references at that time, its over with. Natural born was a well defined legal concept at that time, and did not originate "ill defined" in the Constitution. Case over. Obama is not a natural born citizen under the Constitution, and appears in fact to be a citizen of several third-world countries.

Emer de Vattel, founder of modern international law, 1758:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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.

 

[bojo68]

After several of us have quoted from the legal references at that time, its over with. Natural born was a well defined legal concept at that time, and did not originate "ill defined" in the Constitution. Case over. Obama is not a natural born citizen under the Constitution, and appears in fact to be a citizen of several third-world countries.

Emer de Vattel, founder of modern international law, 1758:

For about 5 different reasons. Seconded.

 

[fedup100]

Define a corner!​

The problem with forums, blogs and the media in general is "talking, discussion, fair and balanced etc. This sounds right and it sounds fair. The problem is simple, you are allowing the meaning of simple words and thoughts to be taken away from you by allowing endless and mindless discussion of an issue such as BO and his obvious not being a natural born citizen problem. He is not a natural born citizen PERIOD end of the effin discussion. Therefore, he is not qualified PERIOD! Now, something must be done about it.

When we have sunk so low on the totem pole that it requires endless hours of discussion to define the shape of a " CORNER", we have lost all common sense.

The enemy here on this forum and those who control our information are using this endless babble about everything in order to talk it into oblivion. The constitution and it's simple words can be talked to death and finally all parties walk away and our rights are walking away with them.

Words have no meanings any longer. Shame and Treason are impotent sounds that are volleyed about and left to fall to the ground after having never hit their mark.. This is how they are robbing you blind. We must put our foot down damn it. The words written on the page mean just what they say....period!

 

[phoenixrising]

A Natural Born Citizen by U.S. Code is http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html which I believe is the most up to date version.


As for the intent of the meaning behind Natural Born only one thing can be certain. No one can be a Natural Born Citizen who was fully under jurisdiction of another country who then moved here. The laws describing Natural Born vs Citizen were not set in stone to my understanding. Perhaps more information can be dug up on who wrote that part of the constitution and the discussion around it.

OK...i'll giva ya 1 last resourse...extremely simplified.

as you can see several of us have done the research...anyone seeking answers can


http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/madison11-28-06.html#b

i'll just let you read the whole thing--very educational




& 1 more:

http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html