Question About Presidential Eligibility.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This thread to me represents the dangers of birtherism and explains the reason I am obsessed with it. This is very simple. There are only two kinds of American citizens: At birth and naturalized. Birtherism has taken a very simple and well-understood corner of American law and muddied it beyond recognition. More importantly, it's created all these subclasses of citizenship that allegedly exist. Basically, the argument comes down to "I am more American" than you because I fall into this completely arbitrary and fictitious standard.

Again, this is all well-understood. The reason that there are not a lot of Supreme Court decisions involving this issue is because there has been no need for those cases. There is not a whole lot of law on the "quartering of soldiers" either.

[JMS]

But they also misrepresent those cases and their signficance.

I don't think the cases significance for the term Natural Born are misrepresented.

Whose interpretation?

We have precident for born here to undocumented aliens, born abroad to military service people, and born abroad to 2 civilian us citizens by birth. We have no precident for born abroad to naturalized citizens and the US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens of United States of America: BTFoom posted does not cover such an instance. No such instance has ever come up.

Again, according to who? Only de Vattellist birthers think this. They made it up out of whole cloth. It's total crap.

To be more accurate... Birthers believe many things made up out of whole cloth which are total crap. Such as Obama's birth place, Obama's mom's citizen ship, and Obama's eligibility to be president...

I don't think even birthers would make the distiction which I am making, because it clearly does not apply to Obama.

Just because someone says it on the internet doesn't mean its a valid argument.

US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens of United States of America: sections A-H...

Their is no such blanket cover for the foreigh born children of naturalized citizens with regard to Natural Born Citizen's coverage. Naturalized citizens must jump through hoops of residency and timeframes and the like, which means they don't have blanket coverage by this document.

---------- Post added May-31st-2011 at 03:56 PM ----------

This thread to me represents the dangers of birtherism and explains the reason I am obsessed with it. This is very simple. There are only two kinds of American citizens: At birth and naturalized. Birtherism has taken a very simple and well-understood corner of American law and muddied it beyond recognition. More importantly' date=' it's created all these subclasses of citizenship that allegedly exist. Basically, the argument comes down to "I am more American" than you because I fall into this completely arbitrary and fictitious standard.

Again, this is all well-understood. The reason that there are not a lot of Supreme Court decisions involving this issue is because there has been no need for those cases. There is not a whole lot of law on the "quartering of soldiers" either.[/quote']

I don't think Birthers are much of a danger. If you exame their postion it quickly degenerates into hand waving and frantic gestures.

However the danger you identify has always been pressent hasn't it? I mean the entire reason for the precidents changing the interpretation of the law signifies how our understanding of "natural born" has changed.

Logically if you define only two groups Naturalized and Natural born; you have not necessarily identified the entire set. McCain clearly falls into a fourth catagory. He is a kid who was not born eligible to be president, but had it conveyed upon him in the 1930's or 2008 depending upon how you look at it..

[Predicto]

I don't think the cases significance for the term Natural Born are misrepresented.

Well, I think you are incorrect.

We have precident for born here to undocumented aliens, born abroad to military service people, and born abroad to 2 civilian us citizens by birth. We have no precident for born abroad to naturalized citizens and the US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens of United States of America: BTFoom posted does not cover such an instance. No such instance has ever come up.

You don't need every possible incarnation to understand what the rule is. The answer to all of the them is the same. All of them are eligible to be president if they were born as citizens.

But wait!!!! What about people born to one naturalized citizen parent and one parent in the process of being naturalized, while on an iceberg floating on the border between an American territory overseas and international waters, while on a military mission for the US but under diplomatic cover!!!???!?!?!?

The answer is still the same. If you qualify as a citizen on that day you were born, you are eligible to be President. If you have to go through hoops to become a citizen, you can't. Period. I have no idea if that kid born on an iceberg was a citizen at birth or not, but I know that if he or she was - he or she can be President.

To be more accurate... Birthers believe many things made up out of whole cloth which are total crap. Such as Obama's birth place, Obama's mom's citizen ship, and Obama's eligibility to be president...

I don't think even birthers would make the distiction which I am making, because it clearly does not apply to Obama.

US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401: Nationals and Citizens of United States of America: sections A-H...

Their is no such blanket cover for the foreigh born children of naturalized citizens with regard to Natural Born Citizen's coverage. Naturalized citizens must jump through hoops of residency and timeframes and the like, which means they don't have blanket coverage by this document.

And again you are wrong. There may be timeframes and all sorts of stuff that apply to people. Some people are born citizens and some aren't, based on Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401. That's fine. If you fit the bill under that statue so that you were a citizen on the day you were born - you can be President. If you didn't fit that bill, if you weren't a citizen at the moment of birth, you can't.

That's all there is to it.

I don't think Birthers are much of a danger. If you exame their postion it quickly degenerates into hand waving and frantic gestures.

However the danger you identify has always been pressent hasn't it? I mean the entire reason for the precidents changing the interpretation of the law signifies how our understanding of "natural born" has changed.

Logically if you define only two groups Naturalized and Natural born; you have not necessarily identified the entire set. McCain clearly falls into a fourth catagory. He is a kid who was not born eligible to be president, but had it conveyed upon him in the 1930's or 2008 depending upon how you look at it..

That is wrong, once again. McCain was either naturalized by a change the law in 1930, or he was a natural born citizen all along. There is no other category (the 2008 vote was not law, it was just the Senate expressing support for McCain).

Whether or not McCain was born a citizen is the only question that matters. If he was, then he is eligible to be President. If not, then he isn't. There are only 2 categories.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Maybe you should keep typing it a few more times - until you finally spell it correctly

No, I'm typing it "Arnold phonetically."

[techboy]

Well, I think you are incorrect.

I have to give JMS credit. He's not intimidated by anybody. He'll argue case law with an appellate court attorney, evolution with a professor of biology, and church history and theology with a seminary trained pastor.

I don't think one can be truly considered a "board expert" here until having engaged in a discussion of at least 15 pages with JMS on his or her topic of expertise.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I have to give JMS credit. He's not intimidated by anybody. He'll argue case law with an appellate court attorney, evolution with a professor of biology, and church history and theology with a seminary trained pastor.

I don't think one can be truly considered a "board expert" here until having engaged in a discussion of at least 15 pages with JMS on his or her topic of expertise.

I wonder if he only hits on supermodels.

[JMS]

I wonder if he only hits on supermodels.

To be more accurate.. because accuracy counts in any discussion.

• Argue federal law with two states attorneys' date=' from what I can tell.
  [*']Argue evolution with a chemistry professor who specializes in pharmaceuticals, not biology as you misstated.
  
• Argue church history with a christian apologist, who quotes other christian apologists. Not that their is anything wrong with Christian apologists, for them it's really a question of faith. But for some the study of the early church is more a question of history and sectarian theology. An imprecise history with room for discussion and disagreement between rational people. Others disagree which says as much about them as it does about myself. I'll tell you though if you find yourself dismissing the writings of the President of the American Academy of Religion, who also held the title of President of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace and dismissing what all experts identify as the oldest monotheistic religion just because it challenges your beliefs. Just dismissing his writings outright with personal attacks and frantic hand waving because they conflict with your views. Then you clearly come at the study of religion on a basis of faith, which really leaves no room for discussion. Not with me, not with others whom I disagree with.
  

[techboy]

[*]Argue church history with a christian apologist, who quotes other christian apologists.

I wasn't talking about myself, silly. My fake humility wouldn't allow for that.

But since accuracy is important:

I am not a pastor, nor have I had any formal seminary training. 99.9% of the people I quote are not apoologists, because that's bad apologetics. It allows people to commit the genetic fallacy, as you are so fond of.

Predicto, as I recall, works as a staff attorney for the California Supreme Court. His job is to help judges consider the issues and write decisions. I.E., case law.

PeterMP, as I recall, is a professor of biology. Not chemistry.

And mardi gras skin and Asburyskinfan are both pastors and seminary trained in theology and church history.

I'm sorry if the comment stung you enough that you felt you had to dig up old disagreements. It was a joke.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

To be more accurate.. because accuracy counts in any discussion.

• Argue federal law with two states attorneys, from what I can tell.
• Argue evolution with a chemistry professor who specializes in pharmaceuticals, not biology as you misstated.
  
• Argue church history with a christian apologist, who quotes other christian apologists. Not that their is anything wrong with Christian apologists, for them it's really a question of faith. But for some the study of the early church is more a question of history and sectarian theology. An imprecise history with room for discussion and disagreement between rational people. Others disagree which says as much about them as it does about myself. I'll tell you though if you find yourself dismissing the writings of the President of the American Academy of Religion, who also held the title of President of the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace and dismissing what all experts identify as the oldest monotheistic religion just because it challenges your beliefs. Just dismissing his writings outright with personal attacks and frantic hand waving because they conflict with your views. Then you clearly come at the study of religion on a basis of faith, which really leaves no room for discussion. Not with me, not with others whom I disagree with.
  

For what its worth, yes I am a practicing attorney. And also though, there's no difference in "states' attorneys" and "federal attorneys," really. We practice law, and the Constitution sits atop every law anyway.

[PeterMP]

I'm a biochemist who has worked in chemistry and biology depts. Most recently in a chemistry dept and that is where I feel most comfortable (I have a BS in chemistry). There are depts. of molecular biology and biochemistry that I'd also be very happy in, but I've never actually worked at a place with one.

The work I've done is not directly related to the pharmaceutical industry. I've never made a drug. I know many people in the pharmaceutical industry. But if I wanted a job in the pharmaceutical industry, at this point in time, I'd be out of luck.

I have done research on various things related to evolution and genome and protein sequences.

I'm much more comfortable talking about evolution than real science related to drug development (beyond the basic biochemical stuff of how some drugs function). The chemistry of actually making the molecules of most drugs (e.g. organic chemistry) and how those molecules are actually packaged into a drug (so all of the other things that actually go into the pills you take (or whatever)) are further from my expertise.

[techboy]

For what its worth, yes I am a practicing attorney.

Now I'm really sorry I did this. I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't comment without specific expertise, or I'd never be able to post here.

I just thought it was funny, and a little admirable even. Personally, I sort of dread the day that John Dominic Crossan becomes a Redskins fan and starts posting here.

I'm a biochemist who has worked in chemistry and biology depts.

Well, that explains the confusion. I guess we were both kind of right.

Again, though, I'm really sorry I even brought it up.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Now I'm really sorry I did this. I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't comment without specific expertise, or I'd never be able to post here.

I just thought it was funny, and a little admirable even. Personally, I sort of dread the day that John Dominic Crossan becomes a Redskins fan and starts posting here.

Well, that explains the confusion. I guess we were both kind of right.

Again, though, I'm really sorry I even brought it up.

Haha... I wasn't offended! I thought your post was funny! I thought JMS thought it was funny too. No worries.

[techboy]

Haha... I wasn't offended! I thought your post was funny! I thought JMS thought it was funny too.

Well, I hope so. JMS does have a really good sense of humor about himself, but we've butted heads enough that I think things might have worn a little thin.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 12:11 PM ----------

I'm much more comfortable talking about evolution than real science

And just for the record, I'm saving this quote for Skinfan51, should he ever return.

[JMS]

Well, I think you are incorrect. ( That the given supreme court cases bare significance on the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" in the constitution ).

To further frame the discussion, I quoted a soarse which stated these precidents in the definition of "Natural Born Citizen". You called that source unreliable, and I did not disagree with you.

Our disagreement is whether these precidents deal with the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" as it has changed over the centuries to frankly be more inclusive. I posted these precidents not to say they were today determinitive but to say both that they once were, and to show various supreme court cases dealing with this issue.

Now you are saying these case bare no significance for the discusion of "Natural Born Citizen" and I am saying they do; and neither of us has supported his case with a reasonable source.

So let me take a crack at suporting my position that these cases are both supreme court cases and they do in fact deal with what the terms natural born and or nationalized mean . Here cases in question.

1.The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

Here is a link from the supreme court center giving the full text of the case. Which clearly refferences the terms natural citizen and nationalized. To me this proves both that the case in question is a supreme court case, and that the case touched on the matters in question. Which is all I was saying previously.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

2.Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Here is the description of this case which clearly touches upon Naturalized, "Natural born citizen"

http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html

3.Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Here is the sscription of this case. again wich clearly touches upon the subjects of "Natural born citizen" and Naturalized.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html

4.United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

dito

http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

5.Rogers v. Bellei in 1971

dito

http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/815/case.html

Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child. For plaintiff Bellei, the statute changed from complete disqualification to citizenship upon a condition subsequent, with that condition being expanded and made less onerous, and, after his birth, with the succeeding liberalizing provisions made applicable to him in replacement of the stricter statute in effect when he was born. The plaintiff

http://supreme.justia.com/us/401/815/case.html#F5

So clearly these cases are actual supreme court cases, involved in the evolution of our understanding fo the term Naturalized and Natural Born Citizen, and just as clearly these terms have evolved over the centuries as stated becomeing more liberal in their inclusiveness.

Now that's all I was trying to say with regard to pointing out the various supreme court cases. That the court has delt with cases on dealing with the topic over the years. That's what Lambardi asked me for, and that's what my response was which you took exception too.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm a non-practicing attorney (in the sense that I don't have clients and I don't go to to court). This birther stuff has become a hobby of mine.

There is no real history on the question: What is a natural born citizen, because there has never really been a debate about it. There really isn't that much of a history of case law on "citizenship." US v Wong Kim Ark is still the most important case in this area and it is from 1898. That case established that the US uses English Common Law to interpret the 14th Amendment. Beyond that, Congress establishes the rules for citizenship.

How we got here with Birthers is very recent and a little complicated. All the "scholarship" in this area (and I use that term extremely loosely) has been done since 2008 and mostly by people who do not know what they are talking about. It started with Phil Berg - soon to be disbarred PA nutcase attorney and ostensible Hillary supporter - who decided to challenge McCain's eligibility. He got nowhere fast. But it planted a seed that took root once the scary dark-skinned guy with the foreign father became the nominee. I don't know who originally found the 2 citizen parent Vatell rule, but it came to prominence with Leo Donofrio - part time attorney/professional poker player/rock star wannabe. He put the idea into the public consciousness, but it should be noted that no cases arguing the Vatell definition of "natural born citizen" were filed until after inaguration.

What basically happened is that birthers originally wanted to prove that Obama was born in Kenya. Once that fell apart, they had to look for a fall back position that made Obama ineligible regardless of where he was born. Hence, Vatell. It should be notable that the most prominent birther website - WorldNetDaily - has only recently begun spouting the Vatellite theory in an understated way. Little Joey Farah is still pretty much all in on the Kenyan-birth angle.

If Obama was born in Kenya, it might be a question because of the citizenship rules at the time and his mother age and a whole bunch of other stuff I'm not terribly interested in, because it's pointless because he was born in Hawaii.

Here is all you need to know about citizenship:

Natural born citizens as mentioned in Article II Section 1 is defined by English Common Law. Here is Blackstone:

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.

(PS...subjects and citizens are the same thing in this argument).

The only other type of citizenship mentioned in the Constitution is "Citizen of the United States." Since this is qualified in the sections discussing eligibility for Congress by a period of years, it is obvious that the founders are discussing both native or natural born citizens and naturalized citizens.

Therefore, there are only two types of citizens discussed in the Constitution - native and naturalized.

The 14th Amendment reiterates this fact:

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.

Again, only two types of citizens.

Kim Wong Ark defines how one becomes Native (or Natural) Born:

child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

That's really that when it comes to case law. Congress defines citizenship further by Federal Statute.

[JMS]

And again you are wrong. There may be time frames and all sorts of stuff that apply to people. Some people are born citizens and some aren't, based on Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part 1, Section 1401. That's fine. If you fit the bill under that statue so that you were a citizen on the day you were born - you can be President. If you didn't fit that bill, if you weren't a citizen at the moment of birth, you can't.

That's all there is to it.

That has never been the case in this country historically. Nobody questioned the fact that John McCain was a citizen in 1930, or George Romney born in Mexico was a citizen born to two American citizens each of them. But it took acts of congress or legal court findings to confer upon these people the "Natural Born Citizen" title and thus the ability to run for president.

Predicto, also in each case the case or legislation involved was not inclusive but exclusionary. In John McCain's case the bill in question only dealt with people born in the panama canal zone to service men within a certain date range.

In Swiker's case the fact that both his parents were themselves natural born was part of the finding. The legislation conferred on McCain wasn't determinative to Swiker and visa verse because of the circumstances. That's all I'm saying.

[techboy]

In John McCain's case the bill in question only dealt with people born in the panama canal zone to service men within a certain date range

That wasn't a bill. It was, as Predicto noted, a non-bonding resolution:

Senators sympathetic to McCain's position, including Democrats Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), dropped an earlier attempt to quell the eligibility controversy with legislation. McCaskill acknowledged in an interview that there is "no way" to completely resolve the question short of a constitutional amendment, a cumbersome process which could not be concluded before November.

She described the nonbinding resolution, which she sponsored, as "the quickest, clearest and most efficient" way for the Senate to send a message to the courts that McCain has the right to be president.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The cases JMS cites are interesting - if unrelated to the discussion and extremely esoteric.

The Venus is about the concept of domicile and how it impacts citizenship particularly in a time of hostilities between nations. It does not cite "The Law of Nations" a book, but rather "the law of nations" which is the old term for what we now call "international law." It does quote Vattel but only for his definition of domicile.

Shanks is about really really odd and specific parts of citizenship law that relate to the US prior to the Constitution being in place. It gets into really odd corners of international law because the US in the 1780s was a British territory in rebellion. It's also not precedental in light of the 14th Amendment. I mean, we certainly no longer follow the Roman idea that citizenship flows from the father.

Minor is a case about voting rights. The only part of the decision that touches upon any of this is the 14th Amendment idea that all people born in the US are citizens of the US. This just proves how unimportant Shanks is, unless there is a female presidential candidate born in 1779 running for office this year.

Wong Ark matters as I explain earlier. It is precedent.

Rogers v. Bellei was probably decided incorrectly. But it gives Congress the power to set Citizenship laws. Which is what I said and what has always been understood.

What's fascinating about these cases is that they are only cited because they mention the word "citizen" in them. There is no even dicta in these cases that supports any part of the birther argument.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 11:49 AM ----------

So clearly these cases are actual supreme court cases, involved in the evolution of our understanding fo the term Naturalized and Natural Born Citizen, and just as clearly these terms have evolved over the centuries as stated becomeing more liberal in their inclusiveness.

They are Supreme Court cases, but they do not say what you think they say.

Now that's all I was trying to say with regard to pointing out the various supreme court cases. That the court has delt with cases on dealing with the topic over the years. That's what Lambardi asked me for, and that's what my response was which you took exception too.

These cases are not about the esoteric definitions of "citizen" or "natural born citizens." Only two deal with that, and only one (Wong Kim Ark) is precedential. The others deal with other consitutional issues that only generically touch on citizenship.

[Predicto]

"Thus, in summary, it may be said fairly that, for the most part, each successive statute, as applied to a foreign-born child of one United States citizen parent, moved in a direction of leniency for the child. For plaintiff Bellei, the statute changed from complete disqualification to citizenship upon a condition subsequent, with that condition being expanded and made less onerous, and, after his birth, with the succeeding liberalizing provisions made applicable to him in replacement of the stricter statute in effect when he was born."

So clearly these cases are actual supreme court cases, involved in the evolution of our understanding fo the term Naturalized and Natural Born Citizen, and just as clearly these terms have evolved over the centuries as stated becomeing more liberal in their inclusiveness.

Now that's all I was trying to say with regard to pointing out the various supreme court cases. That the court has delt with cases on dealing with the topic over the years. That's what Lambardi asked me for, and that's what my response was which you took exception too.

It appears that we are talking past one another.

You have been suggesting that the constitutional understanding of the term "natural born citizen" as it applies to Presidential Eligibility has changed over the years. What I am telling you is that the constitutional meaning of that term has never changed - it has always meant the same thing - Were you a citizen on the day you were born, or were you not a citizen on the day you were born. Obama was born in the USA - so he was a US citizen on the day he was born. He can be President. End of story.

If the constitutional meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause has never changed over the years, what HAS changed? No federal case has ever analysed the Natural Born Citizen clause (although at least one state court has). So, what are all of those Supreme Court cases you cited actually about?

What has changed? The underlying statues determining which babies are citizens on the day they are born have changed. Congress has the power to set the basic standards for citizenship, and has done so in 8 U.S.C. section 1401. It can change those rules, and has done so many times. But those changes are not retroactive (that would be unconstitutional), and so Congress can't pass any law to change the fact that IF you were a citizen of the USA on the day you were born, you WILL be constitutionally eligible to be President when you reach the age of 35.

Does that distinction make sense?

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 09:53 AM ----------

That has never been the case in this country historically. Nobody questioned the fact that John McCain was a citizen in 1930, or George Romney born in Mexico was a citizen born to two American citizens each of them. But it took acts of congress or legal court findings to confer upon these people the "Natural Born Citizen" title and thus the ability to run for president.

This is simply untrue. This is the kind of stuff that the Post and Email writes, but it is entirely false.

Predicto, also in each case the case or legislation involved was not inclusive but exclusionary. In John McCain's case the bill in question only dealt with people born in the panama canal zone to service men within a certain date range.

In Swiker's case the fact that both his parents were themselves natural born was part of the finding. The legislation conferred on McCain wasn't determinative to Swiker and visa verse because of the circumstances. That's all I'm saying.

And you are incorrect. There was no McCain legislation. There is a tremendous amount of false information floating around out there on this issue. You need to vet your sources carefully.

[JMS]

I'm a non-practicing attorney (in the sense that I don't have clients and I don't go to to court). This birther stuff has become a hobby of mine..

I too am a non practiciing attorney, in as much as I have no training, aptitude or appreciation of the law; and no one willing to hire me for my opnions on the subject.

I am not arguing in favor of the birther point of view. I too tried to understand their arguments and as near I can tell even if you give them all of their claims, they still have no point based upon facts not in questions. Namely that Obama's mom was a natural born American citizen. Likewise I think it's a unsupportable streatch to in fact "give them all their claims".

Now having said that, I was just trying to say that the question of what is a naturalized and natural born citizen has come up before. Has been decided many times by both congress and the courts. Has evolved over the years. And the definition continues to evolve as it is continually tested. Most recently from my cursory research in the supreme court not in 1890's by Kim Wong; but in 1971 by ROGERS V. BELLEI. In congress (Senate) the question of who is eligible for the Preseidency was dealt with as recently as 2008 with a resolution involving John McCain.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It appears that we are talking past one another.

You have been suggesting that the constitutional understanding of the term "natural born citizen" as it applies to Presidential Eligibility has changed over the years. What I am telling you is that the constitutional meaning of that term has never changed - it has always meant the same thing - Were you a citizen on the day you were born, or were you not a citizen on the day you were born. Obama was born in the USA - so he was a US citizen on the day he was born. He can be President. End of story.

If the constitutional meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause has never changed over the years, what HAS changed? No federal case has ever analysed the Natural Born Citizen clause (although at least one state court has). So, what are all of those cases you cited actually about?

What has changed? The underlying statues determining which babies are citizens on the day they are born have changed. Congress has the power to set the basic standards for citizenship, and has done so in 8 U.S.C. section 1401. It can change those rules, and has done so many times. But those changes are not retoractive, and Congress can't pass any law to change the fact that IF you were a citizen of the USA on the day you were born, you WILL be constitutionally eligible to be President when you reach the age of 35.

Does that distinction make sense?

The only part of citizenship law set in stone that cannot be altered by Congress is the 14th Amendment. Unless you are the child of two diplomats or born into an invading army, if you are born here, you are a citizen. Period. End of discussion. That is the holding of Wong Kim Ark.

Everything else is a matter of federal law as determined by Congress. The rules can change, but the laws in place on the day you were born are what matter. That is the holding of Rogers v. Bellei.

Really, that's it. There is no other scholarship here.

The problem is that JMS has cited a bunch of cases he got from a racist kook. And he has either not read those cases or not understood them.

To be honest, I find Shanks v. Dupont to be utterly incomprehensible.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 11:58 AM ----------

I too am a non practiciing attorney, in as much as I have no training, aptitude or appreciation of the law; and no one willing to hire me for my opnions on the subject.

I have a JD. I'm not a layman.

Now having said that, I was just trying to say that the question of what is a naturalized and natural born citizen has come up before. Has been decided many times by both congress and the courts. Has evolved over the years. And the definition continues to evolve as it is continually tested. Most recently from my cursory research in the supreme court not in 1890's by Kim Wong; but in 1971 by ROGERS V. BELLEI. In congress (Senate) the question of who is eligible for the Preseidency was dealt with as recently as 2008 with a resolution involving John McCain.

Rogers v. Bellei does not deal with natural born citizenship. It does not define citizenship. It merely defines the right of Congress to define citizenship. That's it. It holds that Congress has carte blanche power to define citizenship for those born abroad. It was a case about the son of a citizen born and raised in Italy who lost his citizenship because he did not live in the US for a long enough period of time.

The McCain resolution for the 1,000,000th time is non-binding and not precedential. Whatever the rules involving citizenship at McCain's birth are what governs.

---------- Post added June-1st-2011 at 12:00 PM ----------

JMS, Did you read the cases you cited?

If so, how do you interpret them?

[Predicto]

The only part of citizenship law set in stone that cannot be altered by Congress is the 14th Amendment. Unless you are the child of two diplomats or born into an invading army' date=' if you are born here, you are a citizen. Period. End of discussion. That is the holding of Wong Kim Ark.

[/quote']

Yep. That's the end of it for purposes of Obama's eligibility.

Everything else is a matter of federal law as determined by Congress. The rules can change, but the laws in place on the day you were born are what matter. That is the holding of Rogers v. Bellei.

Really, that's it. There is no other scholarship here.

Correct again.

Of course there also is the Arkeny case from Indiana that laughs the birther arguments out of court.

The problem is that JMS has cited a bunch of cases he got from a racist kook. And he has either not read those cases or not understood them.

To be honest, I find Shanks v. Dupont to be utterly incomprehensible.

Because it is. To be honest, the trap JMS has fallen into is an understandable one, even for a smart guy like him. The intersection of constitutional provisions and statues can be an awkward subject to begin with, even for trained attorneys, and the Web is full of bad birther analysis, not only by birthers themselves, but by regular reporters and columnists who are unable to sift the wheat from the chaff.

[techboy]

I have a JD. I'm not a layman.

Does it tick you off that you have a juris doctorate, but you can't call yourself "doctor"?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, this is why attorneys go to school for three years.

Anyone can quickly look at a case and say, "Ah ha...precedent." But that is a very dangerous thing to do. To think like a lawyer, you need to look at a case and first decide what it is NOT talking about. None of these cases address natural born citizenship or presidential eligibility. None of them even have dicta that could be used as a starting point in building an argument. For the most part - they don't even define what a citizen is. And the ones prior to the Civil War are particular meaningless in a world with the 14th Amendment.

[Predicto]

Does it tick you off that you have a juris doctorate, but you can't call yourself "doctor"?

We can call ourselves "Esquire," thank you very much, and that is even cooler than Doctor. :crossarms:

(of course anyone who calls themselves Esquire is a complete tool.)