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 Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

ALERT ALERT

Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service