Just thinking out loud.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
We all know she is an anchor baby. Someone born here is deemed a citizen - a bit embarrassing, but not illegal.
Crucial is birth certificate with American hospital on it. If not, she's not.
Where you are born does not matter. What matters is having two citizen parents at the time of birth.
This (seems to be) incorrect.
(EDIT: It looks like I have not understood. Discussion should continue, as opinions are divided, but the issue does indeed appear to clinched by having two citizen parents (or a father who was a citizen, in which case the mother may well also be a citizen under common law 'coverture') rather than where one is born. Leaving my original comment here, for the discussion, but I think I was incorrect.)
There are potentially several paths to becoming a "natural born citizen". The main one is being born in the United States and not requiring any other naturalization process to become a citizen.
Apparently, there is some uncertainty whether someone born outside of the US jurisdiction but of one or two American citizen parent(s) and is a citizen at birth qualifies as "natural born citizen".
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen
In Harris' case, she needs the certificate that she was born on US soil (under US jurisdiction), because neither of her parents was a US citizen when she was born.
(also https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen)
WRONG…
There was no need for the US Constitution to define Natural-Born Citizen, because the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the term’s meaning was already well understood.
Like the term “ARMS” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 2nd Amendment, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” was well understood and self-evident for the authors of the 14th Amendment.
That said, John Bingham — the lead author of the 14th Amendment — he still told everyone precisely how “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN” is to be understood while he discussed the term on the congressional floor. In other words, the “definition” came directly from the author of the 14th Amendment:
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=059/llcg059.db&recNum=680
HIGHLIGHTS:
John Bingham | A Matter of Allegiance
"To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. There is no such thing as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians." [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th Congress, 2nd Session]
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session]
“…OF PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY…”
This is a moot point. In reality, any federal court will view Harris to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be president because she was born on US soil.
Thanks for the reply.
That's very interesting, indeed, and I appreciate the sourcing, etc.
However, I think I disagree on one point:
There is a problem here, because although the authors of the amendment may well have 'understood' (meaning that they ascribed a certain defined meaning to it) the term or expression (although i do not know if "natural-born citizen" was an existing term at the time, like "arms" was in 1776), they are not alive today.
This is why the Supreme Court exists: to interpret and further define constitutional issues if and when they arise.
So, if Bingham et al intended for this to be the definition: "all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens" then it would seem the definition needs to be reinforced by the SC, because those words themselves are NOT in the constitution or the law (amendment).
The "arms" question to. Does the right to bear arms include any and all implementation usable for either defense or attack? Does the constitution guarantee a citizen's right to develop and posses nuclear weaponry, for example?
I'm asking this because HOW these terms are understood and implemented in the current and future times would seemingly need further definition. (I'm absolutely pro-2nd by the way, der. I'm just querying how to approach and understand the issues involved).
I can accept that Bingham et al intended "natural born citizen" to mean (as you have quoted above), BUT, it appears that has not been sufficiently defined in the modern era, and there is a need for the SC to adjudicate, in order to make it clear.
I suppose the issue has never really been challenged in terms of the modern era. It's noteworthy that if such a definition was upheld, then Obama would be ineligible regardless of whether his birth certificate was legit or not, because his father was Kenyan.
In any case, thanks for the excellent dig.