Fact checking Natural Born Citizen

I question the accuracy of the below message in regard to the assertion of the third paragraph. Minor v Hapersett (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162) case dealt with the question of whether a woman citizen could vote in Missouri. It did not seek to discover the conclusive meaning of natural born citizen, and the Court confessed doubts about the common-law meaning in its dicta.

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

In the very next paragraph, the Court went on to describe how Congress had extended whatever the Common Law had actually meant by natural born citizen.

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8]

The court seemed to conclude, as I do, that Congress could firm up (change) the meaning of natural born citizen in order to comply with common sense. As an example, Congress addressed the question of whether a child born of citizen parents outside the USA had natural born citizen status.

However, I can imagine circumstances in which US Citizen parents could give birth to a child in a foreign land having a culture and government utterly alien and inimical to those of the USA. Such a child could hardly help developing deep-seated loyalties to the land, culture, religion, and people of birth. I know that something similar happened to Barack Hussein Obama, and he has confessed as much in his writings and behaviors. That is why so many American, with good reason in my opinion, doubt his loyalties.

The whole purpose of the natural born citizen prerequisite to serving as US President consists of ensuring the people of the USA that a foreign power has not influenced the President to become detached from or disloyal to the USA and its people. It has NOTHING to do with the right of a putative citizen to serve as President. It has everything to do with protecting the nation and its people from foreign influence on the chief executive.

Supporting laws should accomplish that purpose. If they do not, such as by giving way to the modern concept of political correctness that would let any foreigner become President, they are bad laws.

Read the Wikipedia article on Natural Born Citizen. You might enjoy it. And then you might wonder how so many experts could wallow in such confusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

I think you will find much more enjoyment in Jon Roland’s analysis, specifically with respect to Barack Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency (and read his comments below the article):

http://www.constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

Advertisements

Author: bobhurt

See http://bobhurt.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s