“The whole thing is an arcane technicality that a wise nation would have done away with long ago. To make a holy fuss over it at this late date is nothing but transparent politicing[sic]. Now, Leonard, put that in your pipe and smoke it.”
That is the level of intellect found on the Obama Conspiracy forum . . . concluding that alienage in the highest executive office is an ‘arcane technicality,’ rather than a prudent assurance against foreign influence in that office.
Or, how about Dr. Conspiracy’s ‘googled’ quotes on the ‘citizen of the United States at the time of adoption’ clause being proof of worthy foreigners allowed access to the presidency, e.g., Barack Hussein Obama. True, there were a few foreign-born leaders of great note during the Revolutionary War. However, they had established themselves as members of colonial society as well as supporters of the new Constitutional Republic, and therefore citizens at the time of adoption.
Even today, naturalization law offers an alien in our military, fighting for our country, citizenship upon completion of his service.
It is clear from context and the needs of the times, the ‘at the time of adoption’ clause was to allow sons of British subjects, and/or members of colonial society proven loyal to the cause U.S. citizenship upon dissolution of ties with Great Britain.
Following are legal proofs and examples including:
- Comment on Gov. Morris and Justice Story vis a’ vis Article II
- Two Important Cases on Point
- Hamilton versus John Jay
- Federalist Papers
- Action of Common Law, versus Natural Rights in a Constitutional Republic
- Derivative Citizenship of Wives, 19th Amendment, and the 1922 Cable Act
- Obama as Dual Citizen, or Citizen of the World?
- Louisiana Governor Bobbie Jindal a natural born citizen? No.
- Barack Hussein Obama, “Citizen of the World”
“Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” United States v Prudder, 424 F. 2d 1021(5thCir. 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 831 (1970)
Your citations of Gov. Morris and Justice Story are on point, but do not tell the whole story. First, would you agree that upon adoption of the constitution, British subjects of the 13 colonies, states, or commonwealths, became U.S. citizens?
Therefore, after the ‘time of adoption,’ would a British subject become a citizen? No, only upon application of immigration and naturalization law.
The question, therefore, is if a U.S. citizen mother confers not only U.S. citizenship by statute, but produces a ‘natural born’ citizen if the child has an alien father.
The answer is ‘No’ for two reasons, because; 1) application of law is required to remove, or isolate that alienage, and; 2) the law applicable to Article II, adopted in 1787, did not recognize U.S. citizenship of a mother married to an alien unless abandoned and specific residency requirements were met. Even then, the child still had foreign allegiance through the alien father until reaching the age of majority.
The intent of the framers in cobbling together the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ was to limit the presidency to a citizen without foreign alienage.
Here are two important cases on point
On December 2, 1793, Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania took the oath of office in the Senate. His eligibility was then challenged on the grounds that he did not meet the minimum nine years of citizenship as constitutionally required for Senators ( http://tinyurl.com/mkru86
The Case of Mr. Smith. “Mr. SMITH founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony” ( http://tinyurl.com/lhy32a ).
“If he were a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.“ [Cf. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, § 220 “1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members.] http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm
“Mr. SMITH being then, at the declaration of independence, a minor, but being a member of that particular society, he became, in my opinion, bound by the decision of the society, with respect to the question of independence and change of Government” http://tinyurl.com/kwjvqm
Now, how would you then approach a situation concerning a person of distinguished contribution to the Revolution who was foreign-born, as Justice Story described? By “adopted country,” I suggest that they were not ‘native-born’ but recent sojourners who not only established residency, but also were patriots to the cause of Independence.
In answer, please examine Hamilton’s first draft of Article II’s Eligibility Clause, from Hamilton’s Article IX, Section 1:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Now consider the changes made using John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen.’
“No person except a Natural Born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Federalist Papers
In Federalist No. 62, Alexander Hamilton or James Madison explained that senators “ought” to be free “from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education”, due to their “transactions with foreign nations”, so the nine-year citizenship requirement is a “prudent mediocrity” between totally excluding naturalized citizens and admitting them too quickly, “which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils”:
“. . . the nature of the senatorial trust, . . . participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp
According to 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, § 301, Barack Hussein Obama, a citizen of Indonesia by derivative naturalization, reinstated his U.S. citizenship from birth under 8 U.S.C. 1401 or 1409, by meeting the required five-years of continuous residency from age 14.
Applying the nine-year requirement, Obama became eligible to be a senator at age 28. However, due to his being a British subject at birth, he will never be eligible to the presidency. His native-born status does not rise to natural born citizenship due to alienage, and the determination of citizenship at birth by statute, not the citizenship and allegiance of the father.
In Federalist No. 64, from March 7, 1788, John Jay wrote that the President and the Senate could possibly make a corrupt treaty that would be “null and void by the law of nations”, but “[e]very consideration that can influence the human mind”, including “family affections and attachments”, provides for “their fidelity”:
“It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; . . . But in such a case, if it should ever happen, the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the law of nations. . . . With respect to their responsibility, it is difficult to conceive how it could be increased. Every consideration that can influence the human mind, such as honor, oaths, reputations, conscience, the love of country, and family affections and attachments, afford security for their fidelity.” http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed64.asp
Action of Common Law, versus Natural Rights in a Constitutional Republic
Still evident in the 1948 British Nationality Act is the Possession of all production and issue from the dominion of the monarchy and its subjects. A good discussion of the history of common law on subjects is in Jill Pryor’s Yale Law Review Article, The Natural Born Citizen Clause: An Approach for Resolving Two-Hundred Years of Uncertainty, http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
However, what is the controlling power of conferring nationality in a constitutional republic? Is it Statute or Legislation? Some point to Art 1, Sec. 8. Is it the power and incontrovertible action of jus solis birth? One of you quoted Madison’s certainty of ‘place of birth.’
In a Republic, a citizen is an equal member of the polity.
The state does not determine nationality and allegiance, but the free choice of the citizen father. The ‘ties of nature’ are natural, not pre-determined by the state. The allegiance of a child born to either a citizen or alien is that of the father, period.
There are circumstances where the child of an alien may claim ‘citizenship at birth,’ but first the jurisdiction of any alienage from father, mother, or both must be determined. If alien parents have made proper application with intent to immigrate, the child follows the citizenship of the parents when they are finally naturalized.
Bobbie Jindal’s parents were legal aliens residing in the United States with student visas. They returned to India. Bobbie Jindal may have claimed U.S. citizenship by remaining in the U.S. until reaching the age of majority, but his right to remain an Indian national from birth denies him natural born citizen eligibility. A simple statement confirming this, from Jindal, when asked of presidential intentions would be decimating to Barack Hussein Obama false claim of Article II eligibility.
Derivative Citizenship of Wives, 19th Amendment, and the 1922 Cable Act
It is common knowledge that from the ‘time of adoption’ to 1922, a U.S. maiden who married an alien ‘threw in her lot’ with the husband and became his nationality. No clearer is this illustrated in Perkins vs. Elg (1939) in which the wife automatically was naturalized by act of the husband, thus Miss Elg (born in 1907) being a natural born citizen.
Perkins involved protecting the nationality rights of a native-born minor. However, the 1907 Act distinguished the inchoate ‘dual nationality’ of a minor expatriated by parents, but maintained that a U.S. citizen marrying an alien husband constituted voluntary expatriation.
The debates after the 19th Amendment discussed the high desertion rate of alien husbands (e.g., Obama, Sr. abandoning Dunham) and historic ‘derivative naturalization’ of wives called ‘marital expatriation’ of wives a ‘gender-based double standard.’ Thus, the 1922 Act gave American women a ‘Nationality of Their Own.’
Some scholars, wise in the law, cautioned that the Act would raise complications of domicile and issues of taxation and property. In addition, what would happen if the alien husband became an enemy of the state? The fuzzy, feel-good legislation created conflicts of law apparent then, as felt now.
In our discussion, we have a maiden of U.S. citizenship marrying a Muslim/Marxist alien. Our argument is that natural law indelibly marks the son with the natural ties of the father, thus making him ineligible to the presidency. The modern preservation of the wife’s maiden citizenship confers citizenship at birth but, for over one-hundred years past the ‘time of adoption’ and the laws known by the framers, that woman was expatriated and the son a natural born British subject, until established the woman was abandoned and had U.S. residency. (See the 1795 Naturalization Act http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/ )
Alexander Morse wrote “Any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or double nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world: and the expression even must disappear as soon as that wise and judicious system which Savigny almost created becomes universal. The basis of this system is £he principle which insists that there should be a harmony rather than a conflict of laws. The contrary principle, which seeks to perpetuate a conflict of laws, is a relic of barbarism, and is rapidly disappearing from view.”
Again in 2006, AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY, wrote about amending the Constitution for the very same reason.
Alexander Morse wrote “Any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or double nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world: and the expression even must disappear as soon as that wise and judicious system which Savigny almost created becomes universal. The basis of this system is £he principle which insists that there should be a harmony rather than a conflict of laws. The contrary principle, which seeks to perpetuate a conflict of laws, is a relic of barbarism, and is rapidly disappearing from view.”
Obama as Dual Citizen, or Citizen of the World?
“Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.”
July 24, 2008 Barack Hussein Obama, Berlin
Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”
What is, exactly ‘Dual Citizenship?’ I recommend a reading and syllabus of over a dozen cases at ‘Court Rulings on Dual Citizenship,’ http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
While our State Department and liberal courts tolerate dual citizenship, is there really such a thing? The definition of Citizen always specifies ‘a state, political, or national community.’ It does not say a member of ‘one or more . . . ‘
In fact, under naturalization and nationality laws a new citizen must renounce his past affiliation. Similarly, one who overtly acted as a foreign citizen or naturalized as a foreign citizen was automatically expatriated.
Dual citizenship, a conflict of law introduced by the 1922 Cable Act, is in fact a paradox . . . or, more so, oxymoronic. It is therefore, preferable to interpret Barack Hussein Obama’s nationality at birth as a British subject, until it was established that the father lost legal parentage by abandonment. Then, USC 1401 and the 14th Amendment transferred jurisdiction to U.S. nationality through the U.S. citizen mother. This interpretation conforms with laws from 1787 to this day.
Paralegalnm's Blog 
Leave a reply to natural born citizen party Cancel reply