Stunning News from Georgia – ‘Judicial Fiat From the Bench – Changed the Meaning of the Constitution and Natural Born Citizen’

In what can only be described as an unbelievable, yet in many was ‘to be expected’ ruling, Georgia Judge Michael Malihi has ruled Barack Obama can be on the ballot this year.

When you read the transcripts of the trial the final ruling seemed a formality, but in true Chicago-style politics they got to the judge.  This is my friends is how Election 2012 will come out as well if each and every American does not insist on transparency of the voting process, the vote count, the vote certification, and the demanding of recounts and complete new elections if there is any doubt.  Team Obama, George Soros and his network are everywhere and will do anything to win and keep their Manchurian Candidate in power!

From The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

obamastatueliberty[1]President Barack Obama’s name will remain on the Georgia primary ballot after a state law judge flatly rejected legal challenges that contend he can not be a candidate.

A Georgia judge rejected a so-called “birther” challenge that claimed President Barack Obama was ineligible for the Georgia ballot.

In a 10-page order, Judge Michael Malihi dismissed one challenge that contended Obama has a computer-generated Hawaiian birth certificate, a fraudulent Social Security number and invalid U.S. identification papers. He also turned back another that claimed the president is ineligible to be a candidate because his father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

The findings by Malihi, a judge for the State Office of Administrative Hearings, go to Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who will make the final determination. Last month, at a hearing boycotted by Obama’s lawyer, Malihi considered complaints brought by members of the so-called “birther” movement.

With regard to the challenge that Obama does not have legitimate birth and identification papers, Malihi said he found the evidence “unsatisfactory” and “insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations.”

A number of the witnesses who testified about the alleged fraud were never qualified as experts in birth records, forged documents and document manipulation and “none … provided persuasive testimony,” Malihi wrote.

Addressing the other claim that contends Obama cannot be a candidate because his father was never a U.S. citizen, Malihi said he was persuaded by a 2009 ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals decision that struck down a similar challenge. In that ruling, the Indiana court found that children born within the U.S. are natural-born citizens, regardless of the citizenry of their parents.

Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,” Malihi wrote, which is absolutely wrong if you know the Constitution.  It is absolutely wrong even if you read the John McCain resolution in 2008 voted on by then Senator Barack Obama, a resolution that Obama co-sponsored.

Questions were raised over McCain’s eligibility under the Constitution’s demand that a president be a “natural born Citizen,” because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas.  The resolution defined a ‘natural born Citizen’ as one who is born on American soil, which includes American military bases, American territories and American embassies and consulates, plus whose parents are both American Citizens.  Obama’s father was not even a legal resident; he was a foreign student.

 

Questions over Obama’s eligibility have arisen because of his almost total concealment of documentation from his life – including his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records. Also there are questions about Obama’s Connecticut Social Security number that belonged to a dead person.

Specifically, because of the lack of documentation, it was suspected he might not have been born in Hawaii, or might have another circumstance that would preclude his eligibility under the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” requirement, such as a loss of that status by taking Indonesia citizenship during his childhood, or relinquishing that status by using a foreign passport during his college years. Or that he didn’t qualify because of a dual citizenship inherited from a foreign national father.

But according to Malihi, using case law and obviously under influence, Obama is eligible as a candidate for the upcoming presidential primary in March, the judge said.

To call this ruling beyond belief would be an understatement. First, Obama and his legal team boycotted the proceedings. Unfortunately, the eligibility legal team might have made a strategic error in not simply accepting a default judgment.

According to the order that was issued, the Judge offered them that option but instead they insisted on a trial, which allowed the Judge to make certain rulings he would not have been able to make.

The ruling from the trial court is here. Hopefully it will be appealed and quickly, as the evidence in this case seems very strong.

The eventual possibility of a Barack Hussein Obama is exactly why the Founding Fathers put in the requirement of  being a “natural born” citizen in the requirements for in running for U.S. President in the U.S. Constitution.

We now find ourselves the victims of our own failings… Constitutionally and historically illiterate as a people with a judiciary that rules by case law instead of Constitutional law, a circumstance intentionally created by the Progressive Movement over the past 80-years.

Georgia Judge Malihi’s ruling that Obama and anyone born in the U.S. is now eligible to be President and Vice President (natural born citizen).  It opens the door for the children of terrorists, foreign dictators and usurpers like Obama to takeover and destroy the greatest country for the average man the world has ever seen.  Oh… that already happened, didn’t it?!?

La Raza, Mexico, gangs and Islamic extremists are celebrating tonight.  15 million illegal alien anchor babies born in the U.S. to illegal alien foreign parents over the past 30 years are now eligible to lead the U.S. when they reach the age of 35.  New World Order/one world government here we come!  Our founders are rolling in their graves and we gave our children’s future to cowards, terrorists and freedom hating fanatics.

More info on Constitutional requirements for Prez/VP:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

This from Attorney Orly Taitz:

YAP, IT LOOKS LIKE OBAMA REGIME GOT TO YET ANOTHER JUDGE, HE STATES THAT MINOR DOES NOT CONTROL AND NO WITNESS WAS PERSUASIVE. KEEP IN MIND, OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVE HIS ELIGIBILITY AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY WITNESSES AND HE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE

Posted on | February 3, 2012 | 45 Comments –  Malihi final ruling

Here is the final ruling. Keep in mind, in GA it is up to the candidate to prove his eligibility.

Candidate did not show up, did not produce any documents  and did not prove anything.

Malihi’s order looks like it was drafted by Obama’s personal attorneys from Perkins Coie. He brings forward a ruling from another court in IN and says, that because they ruled that Minor does not control, he rules that as well.

In regards to the evidence and witnesses, he says, that none of them were persuasive. Well, plaintiffs witnesses were not supposed to prove that Obama is not eligible, plaintiffs were supposed to show, that there is a reasonable doubt. Obama was supposed to provide evidence to overcome this reasonable doubt. If HI refuses to provide any original documents and Obama is refusing to provide any certified copies, what can the Plaintiffs do? How can we provide better evidence. I filed a motion for Malihi to issue letter Rogatory to the circuit court in HI, so we can get the original birth certificate or provide definitive proof, that it does not exist. Malihi stated that he does not believe, that he has jurisdiction to sign a letter Rogatory.   I can go to the superior court and petition for letters rogatory, but with the level of corruption in courts, I don’t know, if the Superior court of Fulton county is any better.

From now on we have an official anarchy. No rule of law, no real documents exist. Any criminal can create any forgery, post it on line and that would be enough for one to be the President, to be in charge of the military and nuclear weapons. From now on anyone can use stolen social security numbers of deceased individuals from the states, where they never resided.

We officially have a free for all, we officially have a mob rule, a criminal enterprise running the nation and we have no judge that will stop this mob.

Bottom line, we need to get the original documents from Hawaii and from the Social Security to show, that Obama is a fraud and a criminal. I am not sure yet, how to get the original documents. I don’t know how to break through the stonewalling of this criminal enterprise running the country. I welcome your ideas. I am not sure, how people can stop this criminal enterprise rule short of  a total citizen’s revolt.

At any rate, I will ask for a stay, pending motion for reconsideration and me filing a petition for letters rogatory to the Fulton county court to be sent to the circuit court in Hawaii, seeking circuit court in HI, issuing subpoena for Obama’s original documents, as well as SSA providing the original application for this SS-5 application for 042-68-4425 Connecticut SSN, that Obama is fraudulently using. If the documents, that I got so far are not good enough, than higher courts should issue letters rogatory and subpoenas to the Social Security administration and Department of Health in Hawaii to force them provide the original documents, which of course we all know do not exist.

I need plaintiffs in Indiana ASAP.

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2012 Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Some Interesting Comments:

  • Looks like the judge has been told that he will end up like the judge in AZ that died before Gabby was shot…
  • Judson, this is just the tip of the iceberg – Obama will do whatever it takes to win 2012 Election. Why are the unemployment figures coming out so low. Someone is playing with the numbers!
  • Why are we surprised?  Has anyone paid any attention to the bible lately?
  • The judge ended up being Obamas lawyer.
  • Wonder what they threatened him with? NDAA? Going after his family?  Or did the bribe him and pay him off? Or both?
  • If we don’t wake-up soon and monitor the election and vote count, we are done!
  • The Federalists papers made it quite clear that parents needed to be US citizens to qualify to be President. John Jay was quite specific in his wording. Yet this Judge ignored the intent and the wording of the Constitution, should be removed from the bench. The defendant presented nothing, no proof, yet won the entire hearing. What a scam on America.
  • America, No Longer a Sovereign Nation Subject to Constitutional Law

    Obama was selected, tutored, groomed, and scripted and given enough money to buy the office of President by his puppet masters, George Soros, and the 100+ members of the Democracy Alliance, the Bilderberg Group, and other uber wealthy individuals and groups. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24864 Newt’s buddies!Seriously, if Obama is allowed to run without being first vetted then this country is dead! The fix is in and he will win! All this election stuff is just smoke and mirrors to make the public think they really have a hand in picking the next president. I no longer feel that there is any viable solution available. People are apathetic and not willing to give up anything to get this country back on track other than talk, make phone calls for the election and that’s about it. If I could I believe I would find another country to live out my remaining years of life. If Obama gets in, I am through with all this stuff…it is a waste of time and energy.

  • Seriously, if Obama is allowed to run without being first vetted then this country is dead! The fix is in and he will win! All this election stuff is just smoke and mirrors to make the public think they really have a hand in picking the next president. I no longer feel that there is any viable solution available. People are apathetic and not willing to give up anything to get this country back on track other than talk, make phone calls for the election and that’s about it. If I could I believe I would find another country to live out my remaining years of life. If Obama gets in, I am through with all this stuff…it is a waste of time and energy.

    GEORGIA JUDGE MALIHI RULES THE CONSTITUTION MOOT

    • Judge Michael MalihiJanuary 3, 2012 (TPATH) – Georgia State Administrative Judge Malihi lit a match and dropped it onto our Constitution this day.

    • Despite giving the appearance that America had finally found a patriot in the vast swamp of vermin that has been posing as the legal system in this country, Judge Malihi has immersed himself into the slimy bottom scum of the bog.

    • Disregarding the many Supreme Court rulings of the past, the clear and evident meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” and Georgia’s state own law that requires a candidate to provide proof, the Judge folded like a cheap camera and ignored his states own law and the US Constitution. Obama, the Judge ruled, is a “Natural Born Citizen” because his mother was a citizen. What? As of now, #Obama will be on the ballot in Georgia and this Judge has helped him take one more step towards dismantling the Constitution he so vehemently abhors.

    • All of us who love this country and fear what we see happening to it, this day, are very sad, disappointed and disgusted. The feeling of embarrassment has invaded my emotions as I realize this was most likely a “set up”.

      This may well have been charade, from the outset, to try to once and for all shut down opposition to Obama, and for the first time, allowing evidence to be admitted, in a controlled and preconceived outcome. Instead of not allowing the cases to go forward for lack of standing, which has been the case in all other efforts, they may well have decided to let one go to court, not have any of Obama’s people there so they could not be charged with perjury, and then, rule in favor of the Usurper.

    • There are some very important questions that Judge Malihi needs to answer. This article and these questions are being sent to him.
      Judge, as you read this, I dare you to take a few minutes and answer these questions. I don’t think you will because you are either one of two things. An imposter, a faux jurist with a liberal, progressive agenda who has plastered a slap in the face of our founding fathers or you have been scared out of your soiled robes by whatever Obama’s people threatened you with.

    • This is your first question:
      1. Which of the two above descriptions best fits you?
      2. If you were of the opinion that only one parent need be a citizen in order for the offspring to be a “Natural Born Citizen” why did you waste the time of the court, Obama’s attorneys, the plaintiff’s attorneys and the tax payer’s money by allowing this suit to go forward?
      3. When John Jay asked George Washington to add the term Natural Born Citizen to Article II, what could have been his purpose?
      4. If his purpose was, as he declared it to be, to protect the government from being usurped by foreign affiliation, do you think he and the rest of the first Constitutional Convention participants would have chosen a legal phrase that would allow for just 50% protection?
      5. Since Georgia election law requires the ballot petitioner, if challenged, to show proof of his eligibility, why were you persuaded to rule against evidence put forth by the plaintiffs, as you allowed the defendant to disrespect you and the legal system of Georgia, when they refused to offer proof or even participate?
      6. Would not the issuance of a forged birth certificate, in your mind, raise some question as to why it was forged?
      7. If, as you say, you found the witnesses not to be credible, how much more credible was the non-evidence Obama’s attorneys did not provide when they did not show up?
      8. Since the testimony of the witnesses, at least the ones that did appear in your court, stated under oath, that Obama has been using a Social Security number that failed a government security check, and that the birth certificate Obama put on the White House web site was a forgery, if you don’t believe them, why have you not brought criminal charges against them for perjury?
      9. Part of your ruling stated that since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is therefore a “Natural Born Citizen” and you don’t believe the plaintiff’s testimony equates to perjury, and if where Obama was born guided the impetus of your decision, why did you rule on this case without further investigation into those two very important criteria?
      10. Judge Malihi, since you believe that our founding fathers were so stupid as to not want to protect America from both ends of possible threat, by allowing only one parent to be a citizen, your ruling today would appear to suppose that the King of England, back in the day, could be the father of the next President. Is this what you believe?
      11. Supposing you are not as dull witted as you appear to presume our founding fathers were, if you were in charge of a bank, would you set up regulations that only require one of the two doors to be locked at closing time?
      12. Since you had the opportunity to help America begin to restore, respect and once again protect the US Constitution, can you say you are proud of what you have done? In closing, only you know the answer to the first question. Either way, you have let the American people down and have failed to live up to your oath to protect and defend our land. Shame on you, Sir.
      Regards, Dwight Kehoe – www.tpath.org

–>  All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen  <–
  • All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President –  Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”  –  By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

February 3, 2012Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html . I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”
The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits.

The Constitution’s text does not define a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders’ and Framers” original intent was in including the “natural born” Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders’ and Framers’ intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a “natural born” Citizen is has no historical or legal support.

The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel’s highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as “an eighteenth century treatise” and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III “Laws of the United States.” The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. “The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the “Committee of Eleven,” which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement of being a “natural born” citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress.” Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 “natural born citizens” and then in 1795 and thereafter “citizens of the United States.” By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the “natural born citizen.”

Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment “in tandem,” suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor “left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Minor told us that there is no doubt who a “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875.

Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” the Ankeny court equated the Wong “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen” and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child born in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are “citizens,” only the latter is a “natural born Citizen.” Wong said: “‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ p. 22, note.” Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney’s 1853 pamphlet on citizenship).

Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution are clear in distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” The text of the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Just ruling someone to be a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that the person is a “natural born Citizen,” for “citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” The latter are naturalized either “at birth” or after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was “by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Wonk Kim Ark, at 686.

Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law.
Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents.

Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.

Ankeny said: “Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.” But the court provided no evidence that anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was born, he was born to an alien father. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur’s father when he was born was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another.

Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a “natural born Citizen” when the question of the meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a “natural born Citizen” was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the court would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and not give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor.
The pro se plaintiffs in Ankeny claimed, among other things, that Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents….” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ motion that on its face plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after it went through its explanation as to what a “natural born Citizen” is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was born in the United States (it called that claim a “non-factual assertion[]”) and that even if he were so born he still fails to meet the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it neither held that Obama was born in the United States nor that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never ruled that he was such. The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was “born within the borders of the United States.” The court never even examined that issue. Hence, its statement that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States” and that he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

Ankeny was advisory on the “natural born Citizen” issue because it gave us its definition of a “natural born Citizen” but never applied that definition to Obama’s personal situation. It resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply that law to the facts. It needed to find that Obama was born in the United States and that he was thus a “natural born Citizen” to give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was born in the United States. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on what is a “natural born Citizen” is purely advisory.

To conclude that plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible to be President. The question of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But in order to make any conclusion as to whether plaintiffs adequately challenged Obama’s eligibility, given the fact that on a motion to dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to “view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor, and given the court’s own definition of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the court had to examine whether Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the question of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence outside the complaint (e.g. a birth certificate) which means that the court would have had to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

But not only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact born in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court’s own words, the citizenship of Obama’s parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its “natural born Citizen” test, that Obama was born in the United States, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim without any evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim? Rather, what the court did is just by way of advisory opinion tell us what it believes to be a “natural born Citizen” without applying its definition to the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have ended the live controversy. It did not do that so its opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolution. Lastly, if the court’s decision had not been advisory, the nation today would know whether Obama was or was not born “within the borders of the United States.”

The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued that place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent argument. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was born in the United States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude that plaintiffs did not state a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama’s eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint to give the non-moving party every reasonable inference. I cannot imagine, given that the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United States, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court not treating a complaint that says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parties the opportunity to amend their complaint.

The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground. There was no need for the court to journey into the waters of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on what a “natural born Citizen” is as it pertains to persons born in the United States, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a “natural born” Citizen was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the United States is the only way someone can be a “natural born Citizen.”

As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion that Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a “natural born Citizen.” Such a position is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitution contains both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.”

So, any citation to Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Judge Malihi’s definition must fail just on a textual basis. The clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” The “natural” must also be given meaning. And when we do give “natural” meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, “natural born Citizen” which means a child born in the country to citizen parents.

The Founders and Framers looked for a citizenship standard that would assure them that the President and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test that depended only upon when a child became a citizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would not say anything of how the child would be reared. But a test that included to whom a child was born and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a “natural born citizen” could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural components which were that the child would have to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted.

A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parent requirement, but there is a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement. In contradistinction, in the “natural born Citizen” definition, there is a citizen parent requirement, but there is no “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement, for being born in the country to citizen parents, such a child could not be born other than “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone to become a member of the United States and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need to require citizen parents but at least to require that the child be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since a child that is born in the United States to citizen parents will always be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, we do not engage in “jurisdiction” analysis when exploring whether one is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just look to see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis when examining Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Act) “born . . . citizen of the United States” can be born in the United States to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instructs that we must do a “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis which is what it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen,” who is born within the sole, full, and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship.

If any “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth” does not satisfy the “natural born Citizen” definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just take an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to maintain that he or she is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” then let he or she prove it under the time-honored definition of the clause. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and long-standing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them.

So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact “natural born Citizen” clause only one definition and that is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means that only a child born in the United States to two parents who are either Article II “natural born Citizens” or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory “born or naturalized . . . “citizens of the United States” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This is the consensus opinion of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequently, a “Citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” may be born with dual and divided allegiance to the United States, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is born only within the sole, full, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United States.

A “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a “citizen,” “native-born citizen,” “born Citizen,” or “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” can be born with foreign allegiance but through positive law is nevertheless naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” has only one definition which was recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Satisfying this definition removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is born with no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the U.S. Consequently, all “natural born Citizen[s]” are “citizens of the United States,” but not all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizen[s].” Therefore, any “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show that he or she satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” Failing to make that showing, a “born” or “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just that but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born. Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue. Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs’ documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Judge Malihi said that he “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States. Clearly, “considered” does not mean found. Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.
Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.” Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading. The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot.

Related:

Progressive Insurance?:  Hillary Leaving Just as Obama’s Eligibility Trial(s) Move Forward… Coincidence?

About Ask Marion

I am a babyboomer and empty nester who savors every moment of my past and believes that it is the responsibility of each of us in my generation and Americans in general to make sure that America is as good or even a better place for future generations as it was for us. So far... we haven't done very well!! Favorite Quotes: "The first 50 years are to build and acquire; the second 50 are to leave your legacy"; "Do something that scares you every day!"; "The journey in between what you once were and who you are becoming is where the dance of life really takes place". At age 62 I find myself fighting inoperable uterine Cancer and thanks to the man upstairs and the prayers from so many people including many of my readers from AskMarion and JustOneMorePet... I'm beating it. After losing our business because of the economy and factors related to the re-election of President Obama in 2012 followed by 16-mos of job hunting, my architect-trained husband is working as a trucker and has only been home approximately 5-days a month since I was diagnosed, which has made everything more difficult and often lonely... plus funds are tight. Our family medical deductible is 12K per year for two of us; thank you ObamaCare. But thanks to donations from so many of you, we are making ends meet as I go through treatment while taking care of my father-in-law who is suffering from late stage Alzheimer's and my mother-in-law who suffers from RA and onset dementia as well as hearing loss, for which there are no caretaker funds, as I continue the fight here online to inform and help restore our amazing country. And finally I need to thank a core group of family, friends, and readers... all at a distance, who check in with me regularly. Plus, I must thank my furkids who have not left my side through this fight. You can see them at JustOneMorePet.
This entry was posted in Freedom, Knowledge Is Power, News and politics, Off the Grid, Patriotism, Politics, Self-Reliance, Preparedness and Survival, Watch the Other Hand and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Stunning News from Georgia – ‘Judicial Fiat From the Bench – Changed the Meaning of the Constitution and Natural Born Citizen’

  1. Mario Apuzzo obviously has a great legal mind. But we need another kind of intelligence now: brevity. Say it long; and then say it short, in neat bulleted points so that the cab driver, the guy in the bar, and the liberal journalist can get it.

  2. ellen says:

    The reason the judge ruled the way that he did was (1) birthers did not prove that Obama was born outside of the USA; (2) every US citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

    No. Minor Vs Happersett is not a ruling. It is DICTA, and it says right in the case that the court did not have to decide the definition of citizenship, much less Natural Born Citizenship.

    However, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision (which followed the Minor vs Happersett decision and hence would have overturned it, if Minor vs Happersett actually was a decision, which it wasn’t) ruled that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.

    “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural born-born subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.”— Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 NE2d 678, 688 (2009), (Ind.Supreme Court, Apr. 5, 2010)

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    • Ask Marion says:

      You are missing the point here…

      The Progressives over the past 80+ years have purposely pushed America away from Constitutional Law to case law.
      .
      Also, there is not a word in the Bill of Rights or original Constitution that was not put there for a reason! The Founding fathers knew the day would come that a Manchurian candidate like Obama would appear backed by the elitists of the world. That is the reason the provision of having to be a ‘natural born’ citizen is in the Constitution, otherwise if everyone born on American soil was natural born, talking about it would be redundant!!

      And let us not forget that Obama was a co-sponsor of the McCain Resolution stating that McCain was eligible because he was born on an American Mility base (American soil) and to two American born parents. It was very specific and Obama voted on it.

      All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”

      ■All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President – Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen” – By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

      February 3, 2012Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html . I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

      The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

      But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

      The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”
      The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

      Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

      Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits.

      The Constitution’s text does not define a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders’ and Framers” original intent was in including the “natural born” Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders’ and Framers’ intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a “natural born” Citizen is has no historical or legal support.

      The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel’s highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as “an eighteenth century treatise” and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III “Laws of the United States.” The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

      Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. “The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the “Committee of Eleven,” which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement of being a “natural born” citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress.” Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 “natural born citizens” and then in 1795 and thereafter “citizens of the United States.” By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the “natural born citizen.”

      Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment “in tandem,” suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor “left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen.” The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Minor told us that there is no doubt who a “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the “natural born” Citizen clause.

      Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

      Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875.

      Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” the Ankeny court equated the Wong “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen” and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child born in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are “citizens,” only the latter is a “natural born Citizen.” Wong said: “‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ p. 22, note.” Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney’s 1853 pamphlet on citizenship).

      Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution are clear in distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” The text of the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Just ruling someone to be a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that the person is a “natural born Citizen,” for “citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” The latter are naturalized either “at birth” or after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was “by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Wonk Kim Ark, at 686.

      Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law.
      Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents.

      Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.

      Ankeny said: “Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.” But the court provided no evidence that anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was born, he was born to an alien father. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur’s father when he was born was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another.

      Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a “natural born Citizen” when the question of the meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a “natural born Citizen” was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the court would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and not give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor.
      The pro se plaintiffs in Ankeny claimed, among other things, that Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents….” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ motion that on its face plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after it went through its explanation as to what a “natural born Citizen” is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was born in the United States (it called that claim a “non-factual assertion[]”) and that even if he were so born he still fails to meet the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it neither held that Obama was born in the United States nor that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never ruled that he was such. The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was “born within the borders of the United States.” The court never even examined that issue. Hence, its statement that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents” does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States” and that he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

      Ankeny was advisory on the “natural born Citizen” issue because it gave us its definition of a “natural born Citizen” but never applied that definition to Obama’s personal situation. It resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply that law to the facts. It needed to find that Obama was born in the United States and that he was thus a “natural born Citizen” to give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was born in the United States. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on what is a “natural born Citizen” is purely advisory.

      To conclude that plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible to be President. The question of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But in order to make any conclusion as to whether plaintiffs adequately challenged Obama’s eligibility, given the fact that on a motion to dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to “view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor, and given the court’s own definition of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the court had to examine whether Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the question of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence outside the complaint (e.g. a birth certificate) which means that the court would have had to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

      But not only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact born in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court’s own words, the citizenship of Obama’s parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its “natural born Citizen” test, that Obama was born in the United States, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim without any evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim? Rather, what the court did is just by way of advisory opinion tell us what it believes to be a “natural born Citizen” without applying its definition to the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have ended the live controversy. It did not do that so its opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolution. Lastly, if the court’s decision had not been advisory, the nation today would know whether Obama was or was not born “within the borders of the United States.”

      The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued that place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent argument. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was born in the United States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude that plaintiffs did not state a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama’s eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint to give the non-moving party every reasonable inference. I cannot imagine, given that the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United States, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court not treating a complaint that says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parties the opportunity to amend their complaint.

      The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground. There was no need for the court to journey into the waters of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on what a “natural born Citizen” is as it pertains to persons born in the United States, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a “natural born” Citizen was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the United States is the only way someone can be a “natural born Citizen.”

      As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion that Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a “natural born Citizen.” Such a position is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitution contains both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.”

      So, any citation to Ankeny v, Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

      Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Judge Malihi’s definition must fail just on a textual basis. The clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” The “natural” must also be given meaning. And when we do give “natural” meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, “natural born Citizen” which means a child born in the country to citizen parents.

      The Founders and Framers looked for a citizenship standard that would assure them that the President and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test that depended only upon when a child became a citizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would not say anything of how the child would be reared. But a test that included to whom a child was born and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a “natural born citizen” could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural components which were that the child would have to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted.

      A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parent requirement, but there is a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement. In contradistinction, in the “natural born Citizen” definition, there is a citizen parent requirement, but there is no “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement, for being born in the country to citizen parents, such a child could not be born other than “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone to become a member of the United States and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need to require citizen parents but at least to require that the child be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since a child that is born in the United States to citizen parents will always be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, we do not engage in “jurisdiction” analysis when exploring whether one is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just look to see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis when examining Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Act) “born . . . citizen of the United States” can be born in the United States to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instructs that we must do a “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis which is what it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between an Article II “natural born Citizen,” who is born within the sole, full, and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship.

      If any “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth” does not satisfy the “natural born Citizen” definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just take an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to maintain that he or she is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” then let he or she prove it under the time-honored definition of the clause. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and long-standing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them.

      So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact “natural born Citizen” clause only one definition and that is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means that only a child born in the United States to two parents who are either Article II “natural born Citizens” or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory “born or naturalized . . . “citizens of the United States” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This is the consensus opinion of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequently, a “Citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” may be born with dual and divided allegiance to the United States, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is born only within the sole, full, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United States.

      A “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a “citizen,” “native-born citizen,” “born Citizen,” or “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” can be born with foreign allegiance but through positive law is nevertheless naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” has only one definition which was recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Satisfying this definition removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is born with no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the U.S. Consequently, all “natural born Citizen[s]” are “citizens of the United States,” but not all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizen[s].” Therefore, any “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show that he or she satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” Failing to make that showing, a “born” or “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just that but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

      Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born. Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue. Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs’ documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Judge Malihi said that he “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States. Clearly, “considered” does not mean found. Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.
      Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.” Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading. The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot.

      Georgia Judge Malihi’s ruling that Obama and anyone born in the U.S. is now eligible to be President and Vice President (natural born citizen). It opens the door for the children of terrorists, foreign dictators and usurpers like Obama to takeover and destroy the greatest country for the average man the world has ever seen. Oh… that already happened, didn’t it?!?

      La Raza, Mexico, gangs and Islamic extremists are celebrating tonight. 15 million illegal alien anchor babies born in the U.S. to illegal alien foreign parents over the past 30 years are now eligible to lead the U.S. when they reach the age of 35. New World Order/one world government here we come! Our founders are rolling in their graves and we gave our children’s future to cowards, terrorists and freedom hating fanatics.

  3. ellen says:

    It is YOU who are missing the point. NONE of the writers of the US Constitution or other US leaders at the time ever used the term Natural Born the way that Vattel did. They only used it in the way that the common law did.

    Here is an actual example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution went into effect:

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

    As you can see, that refers ONLY to the place of birth, not the parents. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”

    And here is how it was used in 1829:

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    That is also how the US Supreme Court used the term Natural Born in the Wong Kim Ark ruling, and it is the way that Meese used it (see above), and it is the way that the overwhelming majority of legal scholars use it:

    Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

    Ronald Rotunda, Professor of Law at Chapman University: “There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law.”

    Polly Price, Professor of Law at Emory University: “It’s a little confusing, but most scholars think it’s a pretty unusual position for anyone to think the natural born citizen clause would exclude someone born in the [United States].”

    Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, found “quite persuasive” the reasoning employed by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had ruled “that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Daniel Takaji, Professor of Law at Ohio State University, agrees the citizenship status of a U.S.-born candidate’s parents is irrelevant.

  4. ellen says:

    There have been seven US presidents who had foreign parents including Obama.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Andrew Jackson
    James Buchanan
    Chester A. Arthur
    Woodrow Wilson
    Herbert Hoover
    Obama.

    Of these two fell under the grandfather clause, Jefferson and Jackson.

    As to the others, the ones who were not under the grandfather clause:

    Birthers claim that James Buchanan’s father was naturalized before his birth. Unfortunately for them, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT. No evidence at all.

    Birthers claim that Chester A. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a US citizen. Unfortunately for them, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF IT.

    And Wilson’s and Hoover’s mothers were foreign citizens. Birthers say that they had been naturalized before the births. Actually, they were only made US citizens due to laws that made women who married US men automatically US citizens. That is hardly the same thing as being naturalized, in which you have to give up your citizenship in the foreign country and swear an oath.

    Turning back to Jackson. BOTH of his parents were not US citizens at the time that he was born. Granted that he was under the grandfather clause. But rationally IF the citizenship of the parents really had an effect on a person’s loyalty Jackson would be the least loyal of presidents, far less loyal than those with two citizen parents and less loyal than those with one citizen parent. Yet Jackson–with two foreign parents–was the most fiercely loyal of them all.

    Which brings up this point. If we today do not believe that a US-born child of foreign parents will tend to be less loyal than the US-born child of US parents, why believe that the writers of the US Constitution believed it either? If they had believed it, they would have said it. But they didn’t say it. All that they did was use the term Natural Born, which referred at the time to the place of birth, not to the parents.

    • Ask Marion says:

      I will check on this list and reply, but as you say… Jefferson and Jackson don’t count becasue they were in the Founding era when almost everyone was themselves or had recent immigrant parents.

      Obama has one parent that was not even a legal resident (legal immigrant)… his father was a foreign student. He has a SS # from a dead person out of a state far from Hawaii, and there are a whole lot of other questions… He was also adopted by a foreigner. And even his legal name is questionable.

      And the fact that Obama was a co-sponsor of the McCain resolution, making it very clear that natural born meant 2 American citizen parents, that he voted for, shows that Obama, as an attorney, knew what natural born meant/means

  5. Ask Marion says:

    The plot thickens…http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

    Does anyone know, what is Malihiâ’ss middle name? I saw Michael M. Malihi. What does M stand for ? Judge Michael “Mahmood Malihi ”

    Boston Gobe Obit 2003 Malihi IRAN!!!!

    Here is his fathers obituary ————————

    IRAN ! Obituary———–

    Hassan Malihi | Visit Guest Book

    Of Boston, January 4th. Beloved husband of Talat (Talieh). Father of Ladan Khamsi of Brookline, Ali and Reza Malihi, both of Washington D.C. and Mahmood Malihi of Boston. Father in-law of Farhad Khamsi of Brookline. Grandfather of Roxanne and Dorna Khamsi, both of Brookline. Brother of Effat Taghavi and Najmeddin Malihi, both of Iran. Also survived by several nieces and nephews. Graveside committal services will be held at Newton Cemetery on Thursday, January 9. Relatives and friends invited to attend a memorial service at Le Meridian Hotel in Boston, Saturday January 11 from 3:30-5:30pm. Dockray & Thomas Funeral Home 781-828-0811 {M1}

    Coincidental??? You be the judge!

  6. Ask Marion says:

    More related information sent to me by various readers:
    Georgia Judge Michael is a cowardly traitor: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-02-2012/120426-Georgia_Judge_Michael_Malihi-0/

    Does anyone know, what is Malihiâ’s middle name? Judge Michael.”Mahmood Malihi ” Apparently this is what it is !!

    So it is all coming together now-isn’t it?

    AKA: Does anyone know, what is Malihi’s middle name? I saw Michael M. Malihi . What does M stand for?
    For the super sleuths out there – this comes from a WGEN reader:

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

    Does anyone know, what is Malihi’s middle name? I saw Michael M. Malihi. What does M stand for ? – Judge Michael “Mahmood Malihi ”

    Boston Gobe Obit 2003 – Malihi IRAN!!!!

    Here is his fathers obituary
    IRAN !
    Obituary———–

    Hassan Malihi | Visit Guest Book

    Of Boston, January 4th. Beloved husband of Talat (Talieh). Father of Ladan Khamsi of Brookline, Ali and Reza Malihi, both of Washington D.C. and Mahmood Malihi of Boston. Father in-law of Farhad Khamsi of Brookline. Grandfather of Roxanne and Dorna Khamsi, both of Brookline. Brother of Effat Taghavi and Najmeddin Malihi, both of Iran. Also survived by several nieces and nephews. Graveside committal services will be held at Newton Cemetery on Thursday, January 9. Relatives and friends invited to attend a memorial service at Le Meridian Hotel in Boston, Saturday January 11 from 3:30-5:30pm. Dockray & Thomas Funeral Home 781-828-0811 {M1

    Who is Judge Michael #Malihi? – http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/who-is-judge-michael-malihi/

    comments
    in response to worriedgrammie:
    I sent you an email yesterday questioning if anyone had researched Judge Malihi after I found a Sohail Malihi, Irani, and doctor in Qatar (recall Michelle just went on a lingerie shopping spree in NY with the queen of Qatar). I found quite a few last named Malihis in the US, and one in particular […]
    Delicious Pat! 😀

    this was that man who has the four year sentence in Iran .
    Could this be a contributing factor..?? http://www.rahana.org/en/?p=7253
    Interesting Sherri. I stumbled upon the guy mentioned and had meant to look into this. In fact, it was next on my list. Thank you kindly.

    http://obamaballotchallenge.com/who-is-judge-michael-malihi I thought this comment was very good:
    . It looks like last week’s case was wayyyy over his pay grade.

    Message

    Hi Jean…while reading the website that I linked you last night—-a poster named Pat claims that Orly is a Russian Jew… Below is a breakdown of the Jews in the U.S. Treasury, comments about Soros and also Orly. I haven’t finished the article yet, but thought this would be very interesting to you .

    http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/who-is-judge-michael-malihi/

    Pat says:
    02/06/2012 at 12:53 am
    Interesting thread…but the “Muslim conspiracy” talk is simply not factually supportable. In fact, that is exactly the kind of thing that the real enemy would seek to spread around.
    FORCES BEHIND THE SCENES
    There are forces acting behind the scenes enabling and furthering their own agenda. What sort of forces would have the money to be able to completely subvert our legal system?
    Logic leads directly to the forces that “create” our “money”. Since 1913, those people have literally stolen our republic from us.
    Since 1913, our money has been “created” by the actions of private citizens (not the US Government). When ever a bank issues a loan – that money is “created”. The bank “loaning” the money does not need to have had to previously “earned” that money. That money does not even have to exist previous to the “loan”.
    The bank doesn’t have to have gold in a vault somewhere to back the new money it is issuing.
    When the bank issues a loan – that money is “created” simply through the action of a bank official writing down an amount.
    WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
    So what sort of power do you think you’d have if you could “create” money simply by writing down a number?
    What do you think you could buy if you had “unlimited money”?
    They own the central bank, they own our entire media and have bribed our government away.
    MASSIVELY OVER-REPRESENTED IN KEY POLICY MAKING POSITIONS
    So who are these people?
    It is instructive to note who controls, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department.
    Timothy F. Geithner (Jew) – Secretary of the Treasury
    Neal S. Wolin (Jew) – Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
    Stuart A. Levey (Jew) – Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
    Alan Krueger (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy
    Michael S. Barr (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions
    David S. Cohen (Jew) – Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing
    Herbert M. Allison, Jr. (White European) – Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability and Counselor to the Secretary
    Of the seven (7) top officials in the U.S. Treasury Department, six (6) are Jews.
    This is a numerical representation of 86%.
    How many of these Jews are citizens of the Jewish Nation (Israel)?
    Jews are approximately 2% of the United States population.
    This means that Jews are over-represented among the top officials of the U.S. Treasury Department by a factor of 43 times, or 4,300 percent.
    This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the top officials of the U.S. Treasury Department cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance.
    You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the U.S. Treasury Department.
    GEORGE SOROS?
    Someone mentioned that Soros might be responsible for aiding in the Obama Deception.
    The birth-name of George Soros is György Schwartz. SOROS aka Schwartz is a Jew.
    SOROS aka Schwartz is a citizen of the Jewish Nation. He’s an Israeil.
    NOT AN ISOLATED CASE
    You may want to take a look at other key policy making positions within the government as well – and note who the people are who are holding those positions.
    Prepare to vomit if you decide to look into the ownership of the various media outlets in the US – or management positions in ALL of the US Federal Reserve system member banks. They’re “kosher”.
    POLICIES OF THE JEWISH NATION
    Our perpetual wars against Israel’s enemies – where Israel fights using American soldiers are starting to make more sense now…aren’t they?
    So is it “anti-Semitic” to state facts?
    SPEAKING OF ISRAELIS…
    TATIZ IS AN ISRAELI
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz
    That’s right…..an Israeli Jew.
    IS TAITZ “CONTROLLED OPPOSITION”?
    “The best way to control the opposition – is to lead it”. Lenin
    Orly Taitz was born to a Jewish family in Chişinău, Moldavian SSR in the Soviet Union (present day Moldova). Both of her parents were science teachers. In 1981, Orly immigrated to Israel, where she obtained a dentistry degree at Hebrew University.
    TAITZ SUPPORTED ISRAELI ESPIONAGE AGAINST THE USA
    Before her national news exposure, Taitz was quoted in The Orange County Register in 2006 supporting Israeli military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah, and downplaying the impact of the espionage trial of two American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers.
    Still think Orly Taitz is “fighting for America”? LOL
    She might be fighting for the Jewish Nation but definitely not America.
    Time to wake up and “smell the coffee”……….:)
    Message
    I was reading the Malihi blog again. Found these things to be very interesting. Below are two comments concerning 1. Covert actions 2. Obama’s lawyer is a Georgia electorial delegate http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/who-is-judge-michael-malihi/
    Enigmaticualuna says: A friend has send me this information, I do not know if has anything to do with it or not, but it’s for sure very interesting…
    First, do we have the name correct? if it’s not…here is something that might explain the missing of info.
    usurper’s personal attorney is a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR from Georgia
    Michael K. Jablonski
    260 Brighton Road NE
    Atlanta, GA 30309 Party: Democrat
    Age: 56
    Occupation: Attorney
    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_are_the_presidential_electors_in_Georgia#ixzz1lSq79J9O
    ****************************************************
    Denisa Len says:
    02/06/2012 at 10:03 pm
    That is what my research indicates, found Malihi very well might be a part of the Greenberg psyop. Found a Dana Malihi-Hakmon:
    Dana Malihi-Hakmon
    Member
    Weiss, Porat & Co.
    Advocates & Notaries
    Tel Aviv, Israel
    View Website
    Phone +972-3-5164949
    Education The College of Management Business School (B.A. in Accountancy); The College of Management Law School (L.L.B.)
    ISLN 917920378
    and she tracks back to the Greenberg clan.
    There is this:
    “Malihi: Alpharetta, GA ‘one who is like God’”
    http://names.whitepages.com/georgia/michael/malihi
    http://search.mylife.com/whitepages?searchState=GA&searchLastName=Malihi&searchFirstName=Michael&pid=WP_WP_s7&searchAge=&s_cid=API:00071&searchCity=
    _____
    Malihi/Zeev Weiss Connection
    .http://www.colman.ac.il/english/Pages/default.aspx.
    ________
    Malihi/Weiss
    http://www.martindale.co.il/Dana_Malihi-Hakmon.Lawyer
    ______
    WEISS AKA ZEEV TCHETCHIK, ARIZONA
    Zee Weiss
    Zeev Tchetchik
    West Hollywood, CA
    Los Angeles, CA
    Woodland Hills, CA
    Phoenix, AZ
    Chandler, AZ
    Tempe, AZ
    Zee Weiss, age 55
    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Arizona/Tempe/ariad-trading-inc/60592279.aspx
    ________
    And there is much more, but this should get you into all kinds of NEW INFO and explain a LOT.
    Reply
    • intangiblesoul says:
    02/06/2012 at 10:31 pm
    Thank you Denisa. I must apologize for your comment going to moderation before being posted. Since you posted more than 2 links my account thought it was spam. I rectified that though.
    Reply
    o Denisa Len says:
    02/06/2012 at 11:09 pm
    No problem.
    Once I started researching Malihi, I backed into the Greenbergs through Weiss aka Tchetchik. I found links to Mossad-front companies on the facebook pages of some of these individuals as well as CIA/psyop/MSM connections. I am betting this is part and parcel of the ongoing ‘stealth takeover’ of the US and while I do not doubt Islam is a threat, I am of the opinion that they at this time are being set up as scapegoats in order to further yet another war.
    The Greenberg clan is a big part of the CIA psyops used to manipulate public opinion that leads to more restrictive (read anti-Constitutional) laws and they tend to put “fake” individuals into scenes and situations to manipulate reality at will. They had a hand in 9/11, as well as most of the ‘events’ in recent US history that led to changes in law. As well, they engage in insurance fraud, racketeering, and there is quite a connection between this group and special effects, film work, actors, costuming, and more. Arizona and Florida are two of the staging grounds for their nation-wide antics.
    There is quite a bit of info on this at http://www.wellaware1.com if you get a chance to go there and start just with the Greenberg stuff. I admit it is a rabbit hole, but then again, so is the manipulated reality that we live in these days.
    I would be more than happy to send you my raw notes and links, but then again, I could not get the email to ‘send’ lol and I didn’t think I was a liberal :O

    Thanks for noticing Malihi. Just another link in the chain.

  7. ellen says:

    Re: “I will check on this list and reply, but as you say… Jefferson and Jackson don’t count becasue they were in the Founding era when almost everyone was themselves or had recent immigrant parents.”

    They don’t count legally. But they do count logically. Logically if there is anything to the idea that the children of foreign parents are less loyal than the children of US parents, Jefferson and Jackson would show that lack of loyalty. Instead, Jefferson was one of the greatest parents and Jackson, who had TWO foreign parents, was the fiercely loyal.

    So the obvious question is, if we do not believe today that the US-born children of foreign parents are NECESSARILY less loyal than the US-born children of US parents, then why should we assume that the writers of the US Constitution thought that either? Sure, IF there were evidence. But there is NO evidence. The writers of the Constitution, and ALL the other American writers at the time can be shown to use the term Natural Born in the way that it is used in the common law, referring to the PLACE of birth, not the parents.

    Sure, they read Vattel, but they read a lot of other things too. In particular, they read Blackstone, who said:

    “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

    (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    Notice how close Blackstone is to Meese, who said:

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s