Who is a natural-born citizen?

Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship at birth

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis states in his dissenting opinion that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis):

^ United States.; Supreme Court, Dred Scott, John F. A. Sanford, Benjamin Chew Howard (1857). ": Dred Scott, John F. A. Sanford, Benjamin Chew Howard". A Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in. D. Appleton. pp. 576–582. ISBN 0306711834.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167–68):

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 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.

Legal opinions
John Bingham

John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

Who are natural-born citizens but those born in the Republic? […] [P]ersons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.

^ Congressional Globe 37.2 (1862), p. 1639.

He reiterated his statement in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

^ Congressional Globe 39.1 (1866) p. 1291. Stated again during a House debate in 1872; cf. Congressional Globe 42.2 (1872), p. 2791.

In a 2008 article published by the Michigan Law Review Lawrence Solum, Professor of Law at the University of Illinois, stated that "[t]here is general agreement on the core of [the] meaning [of the Presidential Eligibility Clause]. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'".

^ Lawrence B. Solum, "Originalism and the natural born citizen clause", Michigan Law Review: First Impressions 107, peer-reviewed print version, September 2008, p. 22.

Views: 23

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Milton L Pozo, MD on May 1, 2011 at 7:34am
For those of you who need clarification.

The REAL ISSUE is the FACT that Barry Sotero, AKA. Barack H. Obama was adopted by an Indonesian gentleman, when he married Barry-Barack’s mother.

Due to his adoption, Barry Sotero has US and Indonesian nationalities.

The Founding Fathers saw this divided allegiance as an IMPEDIMENT to hold the highest office of the land.

Now, even if Barry Sotero renounced his Indonesian nationality, he still is not a SECOND GENERATION US CITIZEN that the Framers conceded would preserve an undivided allegiance to the USA.
Comment by Albert R Fromberger on April 30, 2011 at 4:59pm
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN ~
Comment by Albert R Fromberger on April 30, 2011 at 4:58pm

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Tom StiglichPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ALERT ALERT

Florida Sheriff — “I Will Not Enforce Assault Weapons Ban, Neither Will Most Sheriffs”

Dennis Lemma, who is the Sheriff in Central Florida’s Seminole County, told a group of 2nd Amendment activists recently that he would not enforce an assault weapons ban that could soon become Florida law if the “Ban Assault Weapons Now” amendment passes in the Sunshine State.

According to News965, the ban has the following specifications.

The amendment proposed in the state legislature would ban possession of assault weapons, which are defined as “semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device.”

Lemma, an ardent supporter of the 2nd Amendment and a first term sheriff who is running for re-election, said this about whether or not he would enforce such a law.

“It’s not only that I wouldn’t, the majority of sheriffs across the state would not do it,” Lemma said in the video. It’s up to the sheriffs what they are willing to enforce.”

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service