Comments on Advance Indiana™: New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission Proves The Natural Born Citizen Requirement Is Dead Law

I don't presume anything about Obama's Bri...

2011-11-21T13:25:46.786-05:00

I don't presume anything about Obama's British citizenship. Even he conceded during the 2008 presidential election he was a British citizen at birth based on his father's citizenship. He contended he lost that citizenship when he failed to claim it in his own right by his 18th birthday. That's irrelevant. NBC is determined at one's birth, not when they turn 18. You have the added problem of Obama's step-father renouncing his U.S. citizenship in order to make him an Indonesian citizen while he was a child so he could attend school in that country while he was living there. Vattel's writings upon which the founders relied heavily indicates that a child's NBC status is determined by his father's citizenship. The Supreme Court in Minor relied on the parents citizenship stated in the plural, meaning both parents needed to be U.S. citizens. You have to keep in mind that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was no equality for women by any stretch of the imagination. Their inheritance rights were limited, they had no right to vote and were limited considerably in pursuing professional and economic independence. Aside from the 19th Amendment, equality for women has come through legislative enactments, not the Constitution. The Constitution is not a perfect document, but it was a contract entered into between the states and their citizens with the federal government at the time of our country's founding to grant the right of the federal government to exist and exercise limited powers. I understand there are many people who don't like the idea that you have to be an NBC to be president, but you simply can't read it out of the Constitution or misinterpret it deliberately to fit your version of what it should mean as opposed to what the founding father's originally intended it to mean.

@sally-hill: First, you are beating a straw man i...

2011-11-21T12:05:14.716-05:00

@sally-hill:

First, you are beating a straw man in trying to play a semantic game over my use of citizen vs. NBC, when you know very well that I am referring to him as such.

Second, your discounting of the SCOTUS decision being discussed, which is the basis for GRW's argument, and the dismissal of the relevance of female vs. male citizenship status/rights is laughable.

So, you're say that because the Founding Father's did not explicate certain rights of citizenship to women in the Constitution that it was their "original intent" to base citizenship solely on the the parentage of a child's father?

The very SCOTUS decision being discussed contradicts you!

In response to your assertion that the Constitution prohibits someone from being considered an "NBC" while also being considered a citizen of another nation, here's a hypothetical for you...an "NBC" (who for sake of this example has two US Citizen parents and who was born in US territory), marries a foreign national and subsequently is granted dual-citizenship in his/her spouse's native country.

Is this person eligible to serve as POTUS?

Your problem is twofold: 1) is that you presume that Obama is/was a citizen of the U.K. 2) is that you infer that the Constitution has a prohibition where none exists.

It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that someone who is considered an "NBC" cannot also hold citizenship in another country.

@QRBNST - I find it interesting and curious that w...

2011-11-21T11:10:39.360-05:00

@QRBNST - I find it interesting and curious that while you argue your point in favor of Obama, you only declare him to be a citizen and not a NBC.
"Obama's mother was a citizen - this makes Obama a citizen by virtue of his birth - case closed."

Oh, and btw, typing 'case closed' after you've stated your opinion does not make your opinion a fact. Obama followers have a hard time with this concept...I see it all the time. It does make me smile though. :)

I'm curious how you think he can be a NBC of both countries. How do you have undivided allegiances and loyalties to two very different nations at the same time? Unless of course you don't think being a NBC would have anything to do with jurisdiction/allegiance.

Do you not feel that any of Obama's foreign policies have been influenced by his dual citizenship, or family allegiances such as the British's treatment of his grandfather? Of course they have, and that is precisely what the Founding Father's were trying to guard against.

It has nothing to do with female/male citizenship rights. It has to do with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, the framers of our Constitution. They had just fought a bloody and costly war with Britain in order to get out from under the British Monarchy rule - you honestly think they would be fine with a dual US/British citizen being POTUS?

I think they all turned over in their graves and threw up their hands when Obama was elected POTUS, I'm sure they felt their sacrifices and lives lost had been for naught.

The case was decided after the adoption of the 14t...

2011-11-20T23:33:08.887-05:00

The case was decided after the adoption of the 14th Amendment but before the passage of the 19th Amendment. The Court in Minor v. Happersett found that women born in the U.S., while citizens, did not have a constitutional right to vote because the U.S. Constitution only provided the right to vote to men (excluding slaves). The 14th Amendment made persons born in the U.S. citizens at birth regardless of their parent's origins. Specifically, it uses the term "citizen" and not "natural born citizen." The Minor court is important in that it makes this distinction. It was a point also made by the author of the 14th Amendment, James Bingham, who made clear during the debates recorded in the Congressional Record that the Amendment did not alter the meaning of a natural born citizen. The plaintiff in Minor argued that the 14th Amendment should have been interpreted to extend the right to vote to women. The Court rejected the argument and, in so doing, defined a natural born citizen and explained that the Constitution did not make all citizens totally equal with respect to all rights. A naturalized citizen male had the right to vote, but a natural born female citizen did not have a right to vote. The adoption of the 19th Amendment was necessary to give women the right to vote. Not all citizens can become president; only natural born citizens. If you accept the argument that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen, then there would never have been a need for the 14th Amendment. There is a reason the term natural born citizen is only used once in the constitution.

The case you've cited also explicitly deals wi...

2011-11-20T22:34:25.380-05:00

The case you've cited also explicitly deals with women's citizenship, which makes my next point all the more ironic for your view.

I fail to comprehend nothing as to the distinction between naturalized and natural-born citizens. What you fail to comprehend is that it is not essential for both parents to be U.S. citizens in order for him to be a natural-born citizen.

Obama's mother was a citizen - this makes Obama a citizen by virtue of his birth - case closed. Unless, of course, you're claiming that American females do not have the same citizenship rights as American males?

This is the flaw in your argument, its based on a notion of citizenship determined by patriarchy - not just parentage. So, no sir, I am not appealing to some folklore.

Not sound? I've cited a Supreme Court decision...

2011-11-20T21:51:33.672-05:00

Not sound? I've cited a Supreme Court decision as establishing legal precedent for my interpretation. Upon what do you rely on your interpretation--other than modern-day folklore views of what it means or hoped to mean.

Thanks for the correction on the founders. It do...

2011-11-20T21:38:44.047-05:00

Thanks for the correction on the founders.

It does not change the fact that your disqualification argument is still not sound. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, by virtue of his birth in Hawaii and his mother's U.S. citizenship - his father's nationality notwithstanding.

Had Obama's mother & father relocated to Kenya prior to his birth and had his mother renounced her U.S. citizenship, your "birther" argument might have some credibility. But, as the facts stand, it does not.

NBC did not apply to the early founders; they were...

2011-11-20T15:33:04.683-05:00

NBC did not apply to the early founders; they were grandfathered in at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; otherwise, nobody would have been eligible. As with others who fail to comprehend, one can be a citizen and still not be a natural born citizen--the terms are not synonymous: "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."

Your logic is flawed. There is nothing incompatibl...

2011-11-20T15:16:57.111-05:00

Your logic is flawed. There is nothing incompatible with someone holding dual citizenship, by virtue of parentage, in relation to his/her qualification to serve as President.

The Constitution states that a person MUST be a natural born citizen, it does not say that a person CANNOT also be a natural born citizen of another nation. You are making a legal inference where none exists, nor was intended. If such was the case, then by your standard, the original presidents (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc.) would not have been eligible for office.