Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rock Slinger

Obama's birth certificate

308 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

SoCrazes

Also from the same site:

"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[2] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.,[3] a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[4]

Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Splodgenessabounds
Good point...pushed me to do some digging. Copy and pasted from a footnote at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

Al Gore was born in Washington, D.C. This is considered a "State" for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationalization Act 8 USC Section 1101(a)(36) as are Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands according to the same section. Washington D.C. is explicitly considered NOT a U.S. State according to the 23rd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but the same argument as to why Goldwater is a "natural-born citizen" applies to Gore as well.

Man! I learned something today :)

Not the only one. Whats the deal with Washington D.C. again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Because McCain and Goldwater were both born to 2 parents who were American citizens, both born in a US territory "which makes them a natural born citizen, Panama Canal Zone was a territory from 1909 to 1979, Arizona was a territory from 1863 to 1912", McCain was born on a US military base while his father served abroad under orders from the US military...

All of those reasons above make them a United States Natural Born Citizen. And currently a natural born citizen is eligible.

Bull, a natural born US citizen has nothing to do with who his parents were. Any kid from Soviet diplomats born in the USA was automatically American and natural born citizen. Unless he/she did not want to.

They wanted to disqualify Obama for being born in Hawaii because it was a territory... just when they tried they did not know that in '61 Hawaii already was a state (and that is how this birth certificate crap came about, see the link above I gave AROCES).

At the time when McCain was born, those born in the Panama Canal Zone were not even automatically Americans, regardless of who their parents were, that was introduced by a law one year after McCain was born (though it gave citizenship retroactively).

But I guess I am repeating myself here.

And another thing... ask if any Army brat born abroad can become prez and they'll tell you: NO, cause he was not born in the USA. Politicians have been promising to change that since I worked for DoD abroad in the 80s... only nothing ever happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Bull, a natural born US citizen has nothing to do with who his parents were. Any kid from Soviet diplomats born in the USA was automatically American and natural born citizen. Unless he/she did not want to.

They wanted to disqualify Obama for being born in Hawaii because it was a territory... just when they tried they did not know that in '61 Hawaii already was a state (and that is how this birth certificate crap came about, see the link above I gave AROCES).

At the time when McCain was born, those born in the Panama Canal Zone were not even automatically Americans, regardless of who their parents were, that was introduced by a law one year after McCain was born (though it gave citizenship retroactively).

But I guess I am repeating myself here.

And another thing... ask if any Army brat born abroad can become prez and they'll tell you: NO, cause he was not born in the USA. Politicians have been promising to change that since I worked for DoD abroad in the 80s... only nothing ever happened.

Ok QM I call you on your statements I'd like to see your proof. on all your statements cause I'll list mine. And make sure they fit your facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
As I said before, the only candidates for whom these laws were ever ignored were Republicans, namely Goldwater and McCain. If you righties were so for obeying the law you would have never let it happen.

So way back in 1936 they knew that this one year old boy would one day grow up and 70 years later run for president of the united states as a republican. Who is living in lala land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
That's not necessarily true the constitution uses the term natural born citizen and Puerto Rico is a Common Wealth of the United States and that makes someone from there a citizen.

Until the US Supreme Court rules on this it’ll be in question.

Technically. An embassy is that countries property so it anyone born on that land should be natural born to that country. So any land owned by a country outside of it's so called boundries would also be it's property and thus anyone born there should be natural born. The canal zone was an embassy.

As far as I know kena is not an embassy of the united states.

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
Bull, a natural born US citizen has nothing to do with who his parents were. Any kid from Soviet diplomats born in the USA was automatically American and natural born citizen. Unless he/she did not want to.

They wanted to disqualify Obama for being born in Hawaii because it was a territory... just when they tried they did not know that in '61 Hawaii already was a state (and that is how this birth certificate crap came about, see the link above I gave AROCES).

At the time when McCain was born, those born in the Panama Canal Zone were not even automatically Americans, regardless of who their parents were, that was introduced by a law one year after McCain was born (though it gave citizenship retroactively).

But I guess I am repeating myself here.

And another thing... ask if any Army brat born abroad can become prez and they'll tell you: NO, cause he was not born in the USA. Politicians have been promising to change that since I worked for DoD abroad in the 80s... only nothing ever happened.

Really, I was always under the impression that if you were born within the a U.S. military installation you were considered a natural born citizen. More digging.

Edited by SoCrazes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlindMessiah
And you are not protesting McCain and were not protesting Goldwater because of ......?

Because I knew it'd p*** you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

Here is the naturalization code link: http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal19/8_1101.htm

Section 36 stipulates what constitutes a state for natural born citizens. I perused the act for those born on military installations and didn't find anything, maybe someone else will have better luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Ok QM I call you on your statements I'd like to see your proof. on all your statements cause I'll list mine. And make sure they fit your facts.

The Berg lawsuit was the latest in a series of challenges about the birth of the Democratic nominee for president, which he lists as having taken place in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

{snip}

The first was an eRumor that said that Hawaii was not a state when he was born so therefore he is not a “natural born” citizen.

Source

Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly define the term "natural born citizen", Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen"[citation needed], as well as the conditions of "naturalization".

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”

Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

{snip}

Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[14] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship

{snip}

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)

{snip}

Source

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[2] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[3]. This has become controversial, as some non-residents enter the US as illegal aliens with the intent to give birth to children. A birth certificate is considered evidence of citizenship. This differs from most western nations; countries of the European Union which awarded citizenship to children born there (such as Ireland) closed this possibility.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

* is born in the United States

* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power

* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States

* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution

Source

---------------------------

With all this, why can McCain run anyway? Because the Senate has passed a "lex McCain" legalizing it:

The Senate unanimously resolved Wednesday that Republican presumptive candidate John McCain is eligible to be US president even though he was born abroad, in the Panama Canal zone.

The bipartisan measure put an end to a controversy raised by The New York Times in February, and was supported by all senators, including the two Democrats vying to run for the White House in November, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Times called into question McCain's eligibility to run for the high office on the basis of the US constitution's requisite that a president be a "natural born citizen," meaning born on US soil.

Source

And now comes my question to all those who were bashing on Obama's citizenship in this thread: Why is there one rule for McCain while trying to apply another for Obama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
The Berg lawsuit was the latest in a series of challenges about the birth of the Democratic nominee for president, which he lists as having taken place in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

{snip}

The first was an eRumor that said that Hawaii was not a state when he was born so therefore he is not a “natural born” citizen.

Source

Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly define the term "natural born citizen", Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen"[citation needed], as well as the conditions of "naturalization".

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”

Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

{snip}

Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[14] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship

{snip}

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)

{snip}

Source

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[2] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[3]. This has become controversial, as some non-residents enter the US as illegal aliens with the intent to give birth to children. A birth certificate is considered evidence of citizenship. This differs from most western nations; countries of the European Union which awarded citizenship to children born there (such as Ireland) closed this possibility.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

* is born in the United States

* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power

* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States

* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution

Source

---------------------------

With all this, why can McCain run anyway? Because the Senate has passed a "lex McCain" legalizing it:

The Senate unanimously resolved Wednesday that Republican presumptive candidate John McCain is eligible to be US president even though he was born abroad, in the Panama Canal zone.

The bipartisan measure put an end to a controversy raised by The New York Times in February, and was supported by all senators, including the two Democrats vying to run for the White House in November, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The Times called into question McCain's eligibility to run for the high office on the basis of the US constitution's requisite that a president be a "natural born citizen," meaning born on US soil.

Source

And now comes my question to all those who were bashing on Obama's citizenship in this thread: Why is there one rule for McCain while trying to apply another for Obama?

Ok you called me on the Natural Born Citizen and I do believe your research proves my statement correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

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

(not sure of the validity of the website though)

Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps (of 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 Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

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 in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

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. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Found at: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

(not sure of the validity of the website though)

Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps (of 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 Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

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 in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

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. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

And that would answer the children of military personal being eligibility to be president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
And that would answer the children of military personal being eligibility to be president.

Then why is there a Bill in Congress called S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act that has not even passed the committees? Because that is NOT the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Then why is there a Bill in Congress called S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act that has not even passed the committees? Because that is NOT the case.

Maybe because they'd like to make it crystal clear so there is never another doubt by anyone. Just like the people attempting to manipulate a situation like has been shown about McCain.

Most of the people are educated by what they hear on the radio or TV and most of those people reporting will manipulate anything to there advantage.

But a proposed bill doesn't mean that a law is not in place either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Maybe because they'd like to make it crystal clear so there is never another doubt by anyone. Just like the people attempting to manipulate a situation like has been shown about McCain.

Most of the people are educated by what they hear on the radio or TV and most of those people reporting will manipulate anything to there advantage.

But a proposed bill doesn't mean that a law is not in place either.

There is no other law, believe me. Washington has been promising this law since the 80s to military families ... so far they only got to introduce it. Evidently children of military are not important.

And McCain's situation was not manipulated, they passed a special law so he could run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
Then why is there a Bill in Congress called S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act that has not even passed the committees? Because that is NOT the case.

This would qualify as a law...

Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps (of the Constitution). Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

The United States Code (U.S.C.) is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States.

The official text of an Act of Congress is that of the "enrolled bill" (traditionally printed on parchment) presented to the President for his signature or disapproval. Upon enactment of a law, the original bill is delivered to the Archivist of the United States, and duplicate copies are issued in pamphlet form as "slip laws" by the Government Printing Office (GPO). The Archivist assembles annual volumes of the enacted laws and publishes them as the United States Statutes at Large. By law, the text of the Statutes at Large is "legal evidence" of the laws enacted by Congress. (According to 1 USC Sec. 133 slip laws are also competent evidence.)

The Statutes at Large, however, is not a convenient tool for legal research. It is arranged strictly in chronological order, so that statutes addressing related topics may be scattered across many volumes. Statutes often repeal or amend earlier laws, and extensive cross-referencing is required to determine what laws are in effect at any given time.

The United States Code is the result of an effort to make finding relevant and effective statutes simpler by reorganizing them by subject matter, and eliminating expired and amended sections. The Code is maintained by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (LRC) of the U.S. House of Representatives. The LRC determines which statutes in the United States Statutes at Large should be codified, and which existing statutes are affected by amendments or repeals, or have simply expired by their own terms. The LRC updates the Code accordingly.

Because of this codification approach, a single named statute (like the Taft-Hartley Act, or the Embargo Act) may or may not appear in a single place in the Code. Often, complex legislation bundles a series of provisions together as a means of addressing a social or governmental problem; those provisions often fall in different logical areas of the Code.

For example, a bill providing relief for family farms might affect items in Title 7 (Agriculture), Title 26 (Tax), and Title 43 (Public Lands). When the bill is codified, its various provisions might well be placed in different parts of those various Titles. Traces of this process are generally found in the Notes accompanying the "lead section" associated with the popular name, and in cross-reference tables that identify Code sections corresponding to particular Acts of Congress.

Usually the individual sections of a statute are incorporated into the Code exactly as enacted; however, sometimes editorial changes are made by the LRC (for instance, the phrase "the date of enactment of this Act" is replaced by the actual date). Though authorized by statute, these changes do not constitute positive law.[1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes
Then why is there a Bill in Congress called S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act that has not even passed the committees? Because that is NOT the case.

As the link purports, the purpose of the bill: To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

It must not be the case all of the time. Based on the word "clarify", I'm going to ASSuME that there have been "hang-ups" with children born in these situations in recieving their natural born citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
{snip..too long}

There is a difference between citizenship and natural born citizen. As I explained many posts back anybody can become a citizen by naturalization. A natural born citizen is one born on the soil of a country.

Any child of an American parent is an American citizen, but not automatically a natural born American citizen unless born on the soil of the USA.

Now, let me be indiscreet: Do you happen to be a Air Force/Army/Navy brat born abroad or why is this point so important to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
As the link purports, the purpose of the bill: To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

It must not be the case all of the time. Based on the word "clarify", I'm going to ASSuME that there have been "hang-ups" with children born in these situations in recieving their natural born citizenship.

It's probably a feel good law to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

I've heard many times how children of military personnel born overseas haven't received the NB citizenship...I always thought they had to be born on the military installation to qualify and that these children weren't. Based on what is shown here in this thread, that isn't the case. I wonder if it has to do with the soldier's discharge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
There is a difference between citizenship and natural born citizen. As I explained many posts back anybody can become a citizen by naturalization. A natural born citizen is one born on the soil of a country.

Any child of an American parent is an American citizen, but not automatically a natural born American citizen unless born on the soil of the USA.

Now, let me be indiscreet: Do you happen to be a Air Force/Army/Navy brat born abroad or why is this point so important to you?

Because your INCORRECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
As the link purports, the purpose of the bill: To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

It must not be the case all of the time. Based on the word "clarify", I'm going to ASSuME that there have been "hang-ups" with children born in these situations in recieving their natural born citizenship.

Yep, just like in the case of McCain they would have to pass special legislation for each and every one of them in the Senate before they could run.

The hang up is that children not born on US soil are not natural born citizens (no matter who the parents are). A natural born citizen is by definition one who is born on the soil of a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide
There is a difference between citizenship and natural born citizen. As I explained many posts back anybody can become a citizen by naturalization. A natural born citizen is one born on the soil of a country.

Any child of an American parent is an American citizen, but not automatically a natural born American citizen unless born on the soil of the USA.

Now, let me be indiscreet: Do you happen to be a Air Force/Army/Navy brat born abroad or why is this point so important to you?

Natural-born citizen: is a term used in some countries to describe a certain kind of citizenship in terms of a requirement for eligibility to serve as head of state of a given country. It is mentioned in the United States Constitution as a requirement for the President and Vice President of the US.

US constitutional definition

Although the United States Constitution does not explicitly define the term "natural born citizen", Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a "natural born citizen"[citation needed], as well as the conditions of "naturalization".

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”

Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who had been born in New York City) to George Washington (who had been born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention. John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention. (43 of the 55 delegates had been born in the Thirteen Colonies, and the others had been born on British-occupied soil: Ireland, England, Scotland, and the British West Indies.[1][unreliable source?])

The 2003 Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution, would, if adopted, have removed the prohibition against naturalized citizens holding the office of the President.

US presidential candidates born outside the US

"The constitutional wording has left doubts about whether those born on foreign soil are on an equal footing with those whose birth occurred inside the country's borders, and whether they have the same rights."[2] Though every president and vice president to date (as of 2008) has either been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, or else born in a U.S. state or Washington D.C.,[3] a number of presidential candidates have been born elsewhere.[4]

Barry Goldwater, who ran as the Republican party nominee in 1964, was born in Arizona while it was still a U.S. territory. Although Arizona was not a state, it was a fully organized and incorporated territory of the United States.[5]

George Romney, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States in 1912. Romney was 32 years old when he arrived in Michigan.

Lowell Weicker, the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France and acquired his citizenship at birth through his parents. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general.[6]

John McCain, who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and is the Republican nominee in 2008, was born at the Coco Solo U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. Although the Panama Canal Zone was not considered to be part of the United States,[7] federal law states: "Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States."[8] The law that conferred this status took effect on August 4, 1937, one year after John McCain was born — albeit with retroactive effect, resulting in McCain being declared a U.S. citizen.[9]

The mere fact of Constitutional ineligibility has not deterred some minor parties from nominating candidates for President who could not possibly serve in the office. For example, although some states have blocked ballot access for such candidates, the Socialist Workers Party nonetheless successfully placed its candidate, Róger Calero, on the ballot in Mississippi in 2004. [10]

US legislation and legal arguments

The requirements for citizenship and the very definition thereof have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)[11][12]

The Fourteenth Amendment mentions two types of citizenship: citizenship by birth and citizenship by law (naturalized citizens): "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."

All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. Persons born in the United States, and persons born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, are born American citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under 8 USC 1401. There is some debate over whether persons who were born US citizens and are classified as citizens at birth under U.S. law should also be considered citizens "by birth," whether they should all be considered to be "naturalized," or whether they should be considered "statutory citizens." There is also some debate over whether there is a meaningful legal distinction between citizens "at birth", citizens "by birth" and "statutory citizens" since U.S. law makes no such distinction, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment use the term "at birth." Current U.S. statutes define certain individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth."[13] One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship).[2] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[14] However, the State Department is of the opinion that this does not affect those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship.[15]

US case law

US Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of "natural born citizen," there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): "The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court's ruling was based have changed since 1927.)

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. "We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President."

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoCrazes

I look over the following again and have reduced the qualifications to those that might apply to the military situation that is discussed. I don't see a need for another law (namely, S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act). What is missing that would be the catalayst for Senate Bill 2678?

Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps (of the Constitution). Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

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 in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.