Missouri House Representative Lyle Rowland, looking back over the blight on our national identity that was the “birther movement,” has proposed legislation to stave off future conspiracy theories about presidential eligibility.
HB 41 would tackle future birther movements head on by delegitimizing their central two talking points: First, the “never vetted” argument is eviscerated by a simple requirement for candidates for President in the general election to provide documents showing their age and place of birth. The original paper long-form birth certificate that Barack Obama’s attorney showed the Press in an April 2011 briefing, and that the White House subsequently released as a PDF image on its web site, would be exactly what the Missouri bill requires of future candidates. The “Show-Me” state would make the candidate submissions public records so that potential conspiracy theorists could gawk at and slobber over them, but not be able to claim that they hadn’t seen them.
The second major attack on future birthers is to write into law the scholarly consensus and the legal opinion of 10 courts over the past four-and-a-half years, that the constitutional phrase “natural born citizen” has no requirement for US citizen parents.
My experience is that conspiracy theorists disdain the kind of official documentation that the Missouri bill relies on. They will spin their stories no matter what. Further, they have already rejected scholarly opinions and court decisions on presidential eligibility, and will surely say that the Missouri Legislature has no right to define “natural born citizen” (even though a string of birther court cases have tried to force secretaries of state to do just that). Still, it’s a worthy effort, although unlikely to pass.
Read more:
Huzzah!
The problem is this……
Such certification shall provide verifiable evidence of identity and of proof of status as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee and the origins of such evidence. Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee’s birth, and shall be kept and maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter 610. The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee. As used in this subsection, “natural born citizen” means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee’s birth.
Basically it pisses all over FF+C as CURRENT birth certs will not be acceptable.
It also doesn’t define what is acceptable ” verifiable evidence of identity” and I would have grave concerns about having my passport for example on public display for identity theft.
And WTF does “origins of such evidence” mean or accomplish.
At best a C for effort
I can’t find the exact words ‘natural born citizen’ in any part of 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, Can you point to the exact text where it says ‘natural born citizen’ is defined using that exact terminology? Thanks.
1401… citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Please re-read the definition provided. It doesn’t require 8 USC 1401-1409 to use the words “natural-born citizen,” just the words “national” and “citizen.”
“As used in this subsection, ‘natural born citizen’ means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee’s birth.”
The proposed legislation defines “natural born citizen” as one who is born a citizen, and the US Code specifies who is a born a citizen.
I don’t read it that way. I focus on the word “available” (used) as contrasted to “existing” (not used). If a state offered two forms, then the proposed law would require the most comprehensive, but if only one were “available” then it would match the language of the bill.
So Obama’s citizenship actually would fall under the 14th Amendment correct?
Would the documents be allowed to have a independent attestation done to them for authenticity?
The state that maintains a candidate’s birth record is the authority that attests to a birth certificate’s authenticity. If by “independent attestation” you have in mind allowing a birther access to a state’s official records, I doubt that will ever happen.
Such documents, issued by a State, are self-authenticating, and thereby not amenable or subject to birther’s imaginary requirements. So, no.
No. One is either a natural born citizen (e.g, Barack Hussein Obama) or a naturalized citizen (e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger). No matter the delusional birther theory, that’s truly all there is.
Yes! I’m glad you asked. Follow this carefully:
for none of woman born
Shall harm Macbeth.
and
I bear a charmed life, which must not yield
To one of woman born.
and
Macduff was from his mother’s womb
Untimely ripp’d.
Shakespeare defined it centures ago.
Why? How would an independent authority have any authority on the authenticity of a state issued document that the state says is legit?
No, all the 14th did was to copper-fasten the fact that existing citizenship law applied to non whites. The existing NBC definition was unchanged.
Another question though, would the COLB satisfy this law? Its just as valid a BC as the long form, arguably even more so as it is the current format of issued Hawai’n BC, and I believe some states don’t even have paper records like the long form anymore.
Well ain’t you the cultured one? 😉
Missouri proposes anti-birther bill
By Dr. Conspiracy on March 8, 2013 in Legislation
Representative Lyle RowlandMissouri House Representative Lyle Rowland
HB 41 would tackle future birther movements head on. First, the “never vetted” ar-gu-ment is eviscerated by a simple requirement for candidates for President in the general election to provide documents showing their age and place of birth. The original paper long-form birth certificate that Barack Obama’s attorney showed the Press in an April 2011 briefing, and that the White House subsequently released as a PDF image on its web site, would be exactly what the Missouri bill requires of future candidates.
“The original paper long-form birth certificate that Barack Obama’s attorney showed the Press in an April 2011 briefing”. Good Grief Charlie Bown, Jokers Wild! lets not give any credit to how that forgery was shown as a forgery. The new American standard from Missouri, forge your way to fame and fortune from the ‘”Show Me State”
The only people who say Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery are people who were birthers to start with. None of them have any expertise in detecting forgeries. They are cranks, and their crank theories contradict themselves.
The experts who have looked at say there’s no indication of forgery in the PDF.
However, a fair number of those so-called birther experts assert that there never was any paper long form to start with. The fact that the long form paper copy was shown to the Press proves how unqualified they are.
Remember that document called the Constitution that Birthers claim they are supporting? That same document has a simple phrase, Full Faith and Credit. No independent verification is necessary or Constitutional.
You cannot pick and choose the parts you want. The Constitution is not Build A Bear.
Not exactly. The document CAN be challenged… in the courts of Hawai’i. The only place you can challenge the documents of a state is within the state. Asking the courts of another state to declare the documents of another state invalid breaks the US constitution. That’s always been my understanding anyway.
Of course, the fact that Hawai’i is probably the only place where the birthers have NOT filed a lawsuit on this speaks volumes. An actual verdict that the document was legit from the courts of Hawai’i would shut them down cold. There’s no way in hell any other State court would go against that, and any federal court would most likely throw it out as well.
No worries. No one ever will.
I am aware some people attempt to distinguish between 14th amendment citizens and some other kind — but could you clarify, in this theory, who is a citizen but not a 14th amendment citizen, and which part of the Constitution says so?
No, the 5th. In fact, this past weekend, I took the fifth twice. My counsel is Mr. Jack Daniels, Esq. Esquire magazine, actually.
QotD candidate if the Orlyvein ever peters out.
You would have to look at the Public Records statutes in Missouri for that one. I’m not sure “attestation” is the word you want.
Everybody’s citizenship falls under the 14th Amendment except US Citizens born overseas.
Any American born after adoption of the 14th in 1865 is a 14th Amendment citizen. The first two words are “All” and “Persons.” That doesn’t leave room for anyone else.
There are only two types of citizens; “Citizens of the United States at Birth” and “Naturalized United States Citizens.”
Type one can be president and type two cannot be president.
There’s some debate about that.
The 14th Amendment says: “All persons born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof…”
This language is replicated in 8 USC 1401.
However, according to U.S. law, “in the United States” only means in the actual 50 states, and the District of Columbia. If it had meant otherwise, why would Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands need their own provisions for providing U.S. Citizenship? Why would people in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa not actually get citizenship, but just nationality of the United States? Those are all U.S. Territories.
What sign were you born under?
“No parking”
Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
Based on what?
The 14th Amendment itself reads:
All persons born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof…”
Notice it says “all,” as in all.
Any other questions?
Are you trying to suggest that the 14th amendment does not apply to white people?
Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the 14th amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ”
Persons born citizens overseas (of US parents) are neither born in the US nor naturalized in the US. That’s why they are excluded as “14th amendment citizens”. See Rogers v. Bellei.
I know that some folks like to play with words, and to concoct ersatz meaning for plain text.l It’s not a game that you will get much play with here.
So why did Obama feel compelled to state that his birth status was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 rather than the 14th Amendment?
Interesting question. Let me ask you something. What type of people was it enacted for initially?
He didn’t say anything of the sort. He said he was a dual citizen till he was 21. That’s it. That has no affect on his US citizenship status. He is no longer a citizen of Kenya as Kenya does not allow dual citizenship after 21. The US does.
In any case, British Nationality law would apply to Donald Trump too. And foreign nationality law applied to Spiro Agnew and a whole bunch of other people.
Don’t avoid the question. Does or does not the 14th apply to white people? After all the author stated that as far as he was concerned it was “simply declaratory of existing law”
And the quote from Serpico was the original question before Serpico edited it, by the way.
Spiro Agnew’s father was naturalized before he was born. He was a natural born Citizen. The 14th Amendment was applied initially for slaves only. You know this to be true. Donald Trump is completely irrelevant to this thread.
Agnew was a Dual Italian Citizen by Italian law. You know this to be true.
Does or does not the 14th amendment apply to white people?
Not by the original intent, no!.
I don’t think he felt compelled to say anything. I think he chose to say what he did because he wanted to stop the birfer conspiracy theories. Since United States citizenship is governed by the laws of the United States and not by the laws of other countries, he knew that the British Nationality Act of 1948 has no affect on the fact that he is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii in 1961.
I think the mistake he made back then was thinking that any amount of evidence would stop the conspiracy theories. Anyone who is gullible enough to buy into the BS spread by birfer charlatans certainly lacks the critical thinking skills necessary to form an opinion based on a rational analysis of logic and evidence.
Yes, the 14th amendment was written primarily with slaves in mind, but the language, which is what has the main force of law, covers everyone regardless of race. Anyway, what makes you think that the President would not have been considered a citizen by birth in pre-14th Amendment times? The simple fact is that from the earliest British settlements, through all of US history, those born in the territory were citizens. There are no contrary examples (I challenge you to cite one). This fact was recognized by the courts in Lynch v. Clarke and many other pre-14 the amendment cases.
Well first of all, negroes weren’t considered human beings pre 14th Amendment.
So Serpico, you are saying white people have no Constitutional guarantee that they are citizens. The privileges and immunities of white people may be abridged, and they may be deprived of life, liberty or property by any State without due process. White people also may be denied equal protection. Or at least they have no Constitutional guarantee to such things.
Interesting. Which part of “all persons” in your view does not include white people?
Perhaps you would like to reread:
“Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Hmm. But that isn’t true. From the earliest days there were free blacks and mixed race people in the US. Whatever racist opinions some people might have had, they were considered citizens and members of society. One of them, Crispus Attucks was the first person killed by British troops in the pre-revolutionary period. The Constitution counted them as full persons. Only the insanely bad Dred Scott decision deprived them of that status for a brief period until their rightful citizenship was permanently restored after the war. The main purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that no future group of idiot judges could replicate the travesty of Scott. Wong made clear that included Asians as well, which was certainly correct.
As just noted, however, your view means African-Americans have Constitutional rights that white people do not.
As such, perhaps only white people need two citizen parents? And only white “anchor babies” may be denied citizenship? Babies born of undocumented Mexicans, Asians, Persians, Arabs, etc., are guaranteed citizenship?
You may want to try rethinking your view. Beyond your confusion about the distinction between race and slavery.
Do you respect and believe in the founders ‘original intent’ of what type of person they wanted as a president for Article 2 Section 1 purposes?
If their original intent was to exclude women, blacks, Asians, native Americans, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc., then no, I for one do not. If that was their intent, that deserves no respect whatsoever.
By the way, as a general statement, “originalism” is simply one of a number of ways of analyzing the Constitution that happens to be favored by the Conservative wing of the current Supreme Court. It is no more “correct” than any of the other doctrines. No one is obliged to bow down before “original intent” nor before any of the judges who favor such a dogma. It could well be that 20 years from now it will be in the dustbin of legal history.
Try answering the question I asked. Which part of “all persons” do you think excludes white people? Why do you think African-Americans have constitutional rights other people do not?
Hiram Revels was elected to the Senate in 1870. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 (only 2 years previously). Some claimed that he could not be a Senator because of the 7 years a citizen rule. That was quickly shot down as it was understood that the amendment was declaring only what already existed. Its purpose was declare the longtime rule and prevent states and courts from wrongly denying citizenship on account of race (a partial response to the ugly Dred Scott ruling).
If you actually went and read the debates on the 14th and civil rights acts, you would see the actual intent. Ballantine has listed them repeatedly on this site. Given your choice of words for Americans of African descent, I suspect you are not actually interested in the historical facts.
Here is the interesting thing about amendments: they not only are part of the Constitution; they *override* parts of the Constitution.
That means, for instance, that the framers’ original intent to count slaves as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of state representation in Congress has been tossed in the garbage. That intent no longer matters worth diddly.
Even if you rely exclusively upon original intent, you now have to rely upon the original intent of the *amendment.*
The 14th amendment reads “all persons.” Which part of the original intent of the word “all” are you ignoring?
Justice Gray didn’t think so.
“8 USC 1101(a)(38) The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”
Regarding the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, “All persons born in the Commonwealth on or after the effective date of this Section (Sec. 303, effective November 4, 1986) and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States will be citizens of the United States at birth.”
http://www.cnmilaw.org/covenant_i_x.htm#article3
If you wish to argue that the founders’ intent would not have included the slaves of those times, you may want to check the date on your calendar, as slaves no longer legally exist.
While you review the meaning of the word “all” from the 14th, you also may want to read the 13th. You can even go see the movie: Lincoln.
Then why do they need to give Puerto Rico their own statute on citizenship? If Puerto Rico is “in the United States”, then why is 8 USC 1402 necessary? Virgin Islands fall under 8 USC 1406. Why is this necessary? If Guam is “in the United States” then why is 8 USC 1407 necessary?
Furthermore, if Puerto Rico is in “the United States”, then why the date of January 13, 1941? Didn’t the U.S. have Puerto Rico since 1898? Isn’t it the fact that if Puerto Rico was in “the United States”, then 8 USC 1402 would be considered unconstitutional, because it would conflict with the U.S. Constitution, by only granting people born in Puerto Rico citizenship at birth since January 13, 1941?
Simular provisions are there on the Virgin Islands (February 25, 1927), Guam (August 5, 1950). Those two would also be unconstitutional, because they’d be denying citizenship at birth from those born before those dates, in direct conflct with not only the Constitution, but also other provisions of U.S. Law.
Far more likely is that the United States in 8 USC 1401-1409 is considered to be the 50 states, and the District of Columbia. It is expanded exactly when the state comes into the Union (which is why Alaska and Hawaii are listed in their own provisions, because people born in those places before 1959 would be governed under those statutes, rather than the Constitution), and why each territory of the United States has their own statute governing their citizenship.
Doc, we can take Justice Blackmun’s example and go directly to Justice Gray’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark for this one:
“This sentence of the fourteenth amendment (Justice Gray is referring to this sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”) is declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law, as to each of the qualifications therein expressed,—’born in the United States,’ ‘naturalized in the United States,’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’; in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the constitution to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
Which is found here in paragraph 77:
http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark
I think it’s also appropriate, however, to note Justice Black’s dissent in Rogers v. Bellei– I can’t adequately distill it into a quote, and I think it merits reading in its entirety:
http://openjurist.org/401/us/815
It begins at paragraph 72.
Justice Brennan’s very brief dissent provides this concentrated extract:
“In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time.”
That’s from paragraph 98 of the same reference.
It’s also worth noting that Congress removed the imposition (if only prospectively) of the retention requirement which cost Mr. Bellei his citizenship.
Beats me. Ask Congress. They’re the ones who say so. It’s right there in the law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1101
No, far more likely is that “the United States” means precisely, for the purpose of that statute, what Congress specifically says it means. I’d also direct your attention to 8 USC 1101(36):
“The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”
So, basically what you’re saying is that the U.S. Code on Nationality declaring who is a “citizen at birth” to be unconstitutional, because it clearly conflicts not only with other U.S. Codes (1401 subsection a), but also because it conflicts with the Constitution (since it specifically says that people born before January 13, 1941 to only be citizens as of that date).
Nope. Not saying anything at all like that, thank you. All I’ve done is provide a perfectly adequate reference that firmly substantiates what I’ve said. It’s not the first time somebody rejected a perfectly adequate reference that firmly substantiates a fact, though, is it?
I can’t even follow the logic of that statement, anyway.
This gets into some fine distinctions. I’m not sure what your concern is, though.
Some basic categories regarding territories are: incorporated/unincorporated, organized/unorganized. Keep in mind, Dave B’s quote refers to the “geographic” sense. After that, as I say, you get into fine distinctions.
Taking Puerto Rico, as an example, PR is considered to be *unincorporated.* Though a district court has ruled that enough laws have been passed by Congress over time that PR is implicitly now incorporated, that has not been acted upon in a determinative, final way, apparently, as of yet. Puerto Ricans also are given a number of citizenship rights, but not all of them. This is a result of being unincorporated.
An incorporated territory is considered to have the Constitution applied in its totality. The last such territories were Hawaii and Alaska, before they became states. Not so for unincorporated. With Puerto Rico, we have seen an increasing number of rights being applied over time. And now, as of the end of 2012, Puerto Rico has had a referendum which expresses the majority interest in becoming a state.
Currently, there are no incorporated/organized territories (leaving aside the initial ruling on PR which hasn’t yet rippled through to a final recognition).
Each territory represents its own unique mix with its own context. That is why you see different places living under different blends of rules and laws and recognition.
dunst: If you are arguing that people born in Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands etc., are not covered by the 14th Amendment, I disagree. But you could check with Justice Sotomayor and see what she says…
I would imagine that “the ‘geographic’ sense” would certainly apply to a physical location in which one could be born.
Well, it gets quite involved in the fine grain. But Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, anyway.
Yes, but being a citizen/national gets very fine-grained (from our normal perspective) beyond the geography when it comes to territories.
I know that. But she wrote a law review article while at Yale involving the status of Puerto Rico and is an expert on the topic. I am currently reading her autobiography. She is a very impressive person.
See Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf
I agree about her impressiveness. My point was just that each territory is its own case. PR explicitly is designated as a territory where people born there are citizens at birth. I thought you were making a point about her birth, my mistake.
Here is a nice rundown on Puerto Rico. I’ll look for Guam.
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/1997-98misc/moscoso-970917.html
From March 2, 1917 to January 13, 1941, children born of those who became U.S. citizens under the Jones Act were considered U.S. citizens jure sanguinis (blood relationship, not by naturalization). They, however, could not run for the U.S. presidency because they were not “naturally born” (jure soli, the rule of place in birth as required by the U.S. Constitution).
7. The 1940 Nationality Act, which became effective January 13, 1941, applied the rule jure solis to persons born in Puerto Rico after that date by including the island within its definition of the United States for purposes of immigration laws. Subsequently, in 1952, the act specifically applied the rule of jure solis to persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In other words, they were considered “natural born” U.S. citizens, contrary to what has been claimed these days by some political leaders.
That’s why they have so explicitly defined “the United States”, as well as “outlying possessions of the United States,” for purposes of being a citizen/national.
Yes, but in some you need a citizen parent. Not just being born there.
8 USC 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
…
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
Per wikipedia’s page on birthright citizenship (which I note given its use of the phrase “special provisions,” in that I think that is the main point here, that its not one big blanket answer that applies to every locality) .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
U.S. territories
There are special provisions governing children born in current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. 1402 states that “[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth”.[4]
Not in the United States you don’t, and as I’ve pointed out, for that purpose, the United States means “the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” I would refer you to “7 FAM 1121.4-2 Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of1952 (INA)” beginning on page 5 of the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual to which you just provided a link.
Now while we’re at that resource, it wouldn’t hurt to look at “7 FAM 1122 PUERTO RICO”, “7 FAM 1122.1 Current Law,” beginning on page 6:
“a. Puerto Rico comes within the definition of “United States” given in Section
101(a)(38) INA. A person born in Puerto Rico acquires U.S. citizenship in the
same way as one born in any of the 50 States. Section 301(a) INA (8 U.S.C.
1401(a)) provides:
SEC 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth
a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
It then continues to explain Section 302, INA (8 U.S.C. 1402); but it is plainly stated that Section 301, INA (8 U.S.C. 1401)(a) is sufficient to provide for U.S. citizenship at birth in Puerto Rico.
And an “outlying possession of the United States” is, for the purposes of nationality and citizenship, one of only two places in the world: American Samoa or Swains Island.
It is impossible for the Obama birth certifiable released by the White House to be a forgery. Hawaii certified it; by definition it is genuine.
Obama was born on US soil; he too is a natural born citizen. Agnew was a natural born citizen without regard to his father, because he was born in the United States.
The 14th Amendment was not applied only to slaves, unless you think “all persons” refers only to slaves and that whites were not persons.
The Founders’ original intent of what type of person they wanted as president was a natural born citizen, someone who was a US citizen at his or her birth, like Obama.
I don’t believe so. A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature). Obama is a statutory citizen due to his father being a British subject.
I reckon you can believe that all you want to, for all the good it’ll do you. Everybody whose opinion really matters disagrees with you, though.
In a state of nature there are no countries and hence no citizens. As for God, please don’t presume to speak for me. Thanks…
Actually, the current President is a natural born citizen and . . . President.
We have had that God/nature argument about the semantics of “natural” before. A natural born Flamenco dancer is the child of two Flamenco dancers, right? A natural born serial killer is the child of two serial killers, right? Hint: some people have been called natural born Flamenco dancers who did not have a single parent who danced Flamenco. But they were born in Andalucia (ius solis).
The truth is that Wong Kim Ark defined the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen”. It is based on the pre-constitution, common law term “natural born subject”.
The problem is: your kind of people lost, you lost both in 1865 and in 1898, and you are still trying to deny it. But that does not change real life.
Nonsense. God and nature have nothing to do with it.
A couple emigrate from Italy to the United States, become U.S. citizens, and then have a child who is born in the U.S. Even Vattelist birthers would concede that the child is a natural born citizen. But how did God or nature factor into it? It wasn’t God or nature which changed the citizenship of the parents from Italy to the United States. Their new citizenship is, as you put it, “bestowed by man’s pen.”
Does nature know that the parents became U.S. citizens? Their blood is still Italian. And God may know about their new citizenship, but what did he/she/it have to do with it?
The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the natural born citizen definition. It was only aimed at defining all of the former slaves as citizens.
You can think whatever you want but you are still undeniably incorrect. There is no such thing as a “statutory citizen.” Your assertion is unsupportable nonsense. The citizenship of Obama’s father is completely irrelevant since Obama was born on US soil. This is not even remotely subject to dispute.
Sorry for not saying anything more people but this actually rendered me speechless.
—
I didn’t say it defined “natural born citizen.” That definition already was well-ingrained in centuries of practice via jus soli. But the 14th Amendment defined ALL citizens, not just former slaves.
—-
Even before the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, it was widely recognized that the majority opinion in Dred Scott was based on a faulty view of history and law. Now, in 2013, it is time you gave this up.
There were no slaves when the 14th Amendment was ratified. If it only applied to slaves, what then what was its purpose?
I’ll answer that question for you: it was to reverse the effects of the worst Supreme Court decision ever made, a decision that perverted the understanding of every American about the definition of birth right citizenship. (actually it reversed two bad Court decisions. It reversed the one that said that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, too. Marbury v Baltimore? or something like that).
The Dred Scott decision was about a freed slave and his citizenship rights and was decided when there most certainly were slaves and powerful forces were lining up on both slave and abolitionist sides. The Supreme Court (especially the Chief Justice) was strongly influenced by the slave lobby. After the 13th amendment, their were no slaves, but “Dred Scott” was still the law of the land. And Scott didn’t just say that former slaves could not be citizens, it said person of color could ever be a citizen, even one who was never enslaved or descended from a slave (i.e. a voluntary African immigrant could not be naturalized).
That was the CONTEXT that drove the desire to put the definition beyond doubt.
However, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say ‘former slaves and their descendants’ are citizens. It says “ALL PERSONS”. It is a generic definition which includes former slaves and their descendants, absolutely. But it is in no way limited to those folks in any way shape of form. Chinese were, for a time, ineligible to be naturalized. But if Chinese parents gave birth in the United States, the child was never-the-less a Natural Born Citizen (as confirmed in Wong Kim Ark).
And before you go off on how the WKA case ‘made’ him a citizen, it didn’t. It confirmed the existing situation. And that existing situation was not ‘defined’ or ‘made’ by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment ‘confirmed’ the existing common law understanding that had been defiled by the Dred Scott Decision.
Neither the 14th Amendment nor the Wong Kim Ark case ‘made’ new citizens. They made the common understanding explicit and took out of the realm of perversion by Court interpretation and Congressional action. Nothing more, nothing less.
I suspect that the founders never considered the possibility that one day a black man or a woman might be elected President. However, the founders did recognize that one day the people might want to override their intent, hence the Amendment process. The founders did not intend for women to have the right to vote, but now women have been voting for nearly 100 years and somehow the Nation has endured.
Some birthers seem to have the misguided notion that the Amendments are inferior to the original Articles. The founders never intended for there to be term limits for President. Does that mean that Obama should be allowed to run for a third term, notwithstanding the 22nd Amendment? You can’t have it both ways
Former slaves.
Dred Scott
I think you are confusing the 13th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
So I think the distinction you’re drawing here is, who was a citizen after the passage of the 14th amendment who wasn’t before. “Slaves only” is close but not quite the right answer. Elsewhere you suggest “negroes,” also close but not quite.
The Dred Scott decision applied to a particular class of people. Justice Taney wrote in his opinion “It will be observed that the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors were negroes of the African race, and imported into this country and sold and held as slaves.” And that is the class the Court ruled were not citizens — this is the decision that was undone by the 14th amendment.
So I suppose your theory is that people descended from African slaves are “14th amendment citizens”. And that that makes some kind of difference. However, in any case, Obama is not in that class.
The existence of the United States is bestowed by man’s pen. How can you have a citizenshipm bestowed by God and nature to a community created by men and women?
Part of me would love to poke you with statements like how your future leaders are all going to be blacks, Hispanics and maybe even a Muslim. Then I remember, your obsession with race and your hatred have already made your life far more miserable then I could ever accomplish. All I can do is pity you and pray you may someday find your peace.
I like that idea, at least as long as I can pick and choose like the birthers and the rest of the unpatriotic, anti-constitutionalists that spout on and on about how patriotic they are and how they want to save the Constitution.
That means that I can declare the 2nd Amendment inferior to Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress Shall have the power to… provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Lets get this “Militia Regulation” thing rolling, shall we?
—-
Please explain how/where G-d defined natural born citizen.
When I look at the Holy Scriptures, they tell me I am a daughter of the tribe of Judah and, thereby, a daughter of the Nation of Israel (Jacob). But I can’t find any reference therein regarding my “natural born citizenship” status with regard to the U.S.A. Accordingly, I would appreciate any citation/reference you can provide that indicates G-d’s law regarding my U.S. natural born citizenship status. (Please do not include a citation to Judge Taney or to Vattel since I do not consider Dred Scott and the Law of Nations to be holy scripture). Thank you.
Nicely said.
At this moment in time. These things fluctuate.
I do not think I am disagreeing with you in the main. If anything I thought I was more on your side in this discussion with dunst. The geographic *list* kind of makes my case, because that is just a list of the moment, not a list based on clear black and white definitions. It’s a list that says okay we’re including these. Why? Because we are. Each has its own mix of reasons, but it’s not clear cut unchanging nature; it’s progressive changes and accommodations.
Puerto Rico, for instance, has progressed in its status over time.
PR is an interesting case because it still remains somewhat gray in explicit terms, but as the district court ruling stated, so much has changed over time with PR that it implicitly should be considered a fully incorporated territory. Yet, even though its citizens are given US citizenship, it is done as a special case, added to the list as it were, but not acknowledged utterly and completely as an integrated explicit part, and at the current rate it may very well just jump to becoming a state before that happens. It’s kind of like a squatter who has for all practical purposes become the tenant, and is treated as such, but still hasn’t been able to sign a lease.
Now that there was that referendum in PR at the end of 2012, I’m wondering if they will actually become a state soon. I would personally consider that a good thing for the country.
I think I ceded any pretext of providing a rationale for why things are the way they are when I said “Beats me.” I’ve just been pointing out what the law actually says, and nothing more. Your explanation of the rationale is, as far as I’m concerned, as good as anything I might come up with.
I wouldn’t exactly characterize the rate of change as a “fluctuation.” For instance, the defined “outlying possessions of the United States” haven’t changed in over sixty years. The defined “United States” has only changed in that same time period to include the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and Puerto Rico has been included in the defined “United States” since the Nationality Act of 1940 went into effect on January 13, 1941.
I’ve looked somewhat superficially at the more complicated aspects of Puerto Rican citizenship– it’s an interesting topic, but I’ve filed those materials away for when I run out of other ways to justify not doing the things I really ought to be doing.
Good point.
You have to remember I’m a time traveler. 😉 On my scale, glaciers are flashes in the pan.
But of course, Mr. Madison– how could I have forgotten that? I will yield to the immortal perspective…
Nah, my bad. It may seem counter-intuitive, but even immortal time travelers need to remember (or foreshadow?) John Maynard Keynes:
“The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”
“comment-254913”>
Paper:
No worries.No one ever will.
Paper you are cordially invited to dinner at the “The Dinner Game”.
So sweet of you.
Unfortunately, I don’t eat from the toilet. It’s good to see you “recycling,” though.
P.S. You may want to update yourself with the American remake, Shmucks.
J.D. Sue: —-
Please explain how/where G-d defined natural born citizen.
When I look at the Holy Scriptures, they tell me I am a daughter of the tribe of Judah and, thereby, a daughter of the Nation of Israel (Jacob). But I can’t find any reference therein regarding my “natural born citizenship” status with regard to the U.S.A.Accordingly, I would appreciate any citation/reference you can provide that indicates G-d’s law regarding my U.S. natural born citizenship status.(Please do not include a citation to Judge Taney or to Vattel since I do not consider Dred Scott and the Law of Nations to be holy scripture).Thank you.
The definition of natural born citizen began in Greek antiquity, all civilizations minus the ones who tend to wear opaque glasses have discussed and improved on the tenets of the meaning, natural born citizen.
There’s another case that’s interesting. the Panama Canal Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal_zone
gabe should explain to children born to an american on military bases overseas that they are ineligible
they are naturalized “by pen”
I find the birthers’ willingness to have America governed by foreign principles when it suits their need to delegitimize President Obama mildly amusing, but not at all endearing.
One might be interested in what historian George Bancroft said about the rejection of the citizenship ideas of the Greeks by the United States:
In any case, in the Greek system, citizenship passed down through the mother. There was a famous case where a woman was put on trial for pretending to be an Athenian when she was really from somewhere else and that meant that her 2 sons and daughter had their citizenship yanked.
Under the greek system Obama would have been kosher even if his dad was Osama Bin Ladin.
First you say that the definition of natural born citizenship is determined by nature and God, and now you say that it was created by the Greeks and has been discussed and improved upon by various civilizations. So which is it? Once again you want to have it both ways.
By the way, is English your second language?
Rickey: First you say that the definition of natural born citizenship is determined by nature and God, and now you say that it was created by the Greeks and has been discussed and improved upon by various civilizations. So which is it? Once again you want to have it both ways.
By the way, is English your second language?
I do not believe I said, natural birth is established by God, I believe I said both parents need to be citizens of the country the child is born in, for the child to be a natural born citizen.
Come on, you wrote what you wrote because you would like to be a guest of, The Dinner Game, I know!
That was Serpico who spoke of God and nature, but not to worry, you shall not be left out, your definition here is in error, as well. You will note your definition has never been used regarding people born in this country.
OK. That’s your opinion. Please explain why anyone should care what your opinion is.
in the real world (outside your opinions) the President is chosen by an election and the choice is ratified by Congress. It’s all spelled out in the 12th Amendment and re-stated in the 20th. You can read it for yourself if you care. Since you seem to be a fan of Athens, you should have no problem with a democratic election.
I’d say Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam aren’t covered under the 14th Amendment, just like citizens born abroad are not covered under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment clearly says, “All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisidiction thereof”. If Puerto Rico, Guam, or the U.S. Virgin Islands were covered under that, there would be no need for 8 USC 1402, 8 USC 1407, and U USC 1408, because they’d already be covered under 8 USC 1401. Furthermore, if Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam are “in the United States” for the purposes of the Constitution, then I see no logical reason to deny that designation to American Samoa, considering that they have the same status as a U.S. Territory. Furthermore, if they were in the United States, then someone born on January 12, 1941 would be both qualified as a “citizen at birth” by 8 USC 1401, and a citizen as of January 13, 1941. The two are contradictory.
Now this isn’t to say that people born in Puerto Rico as of January 13, 1941 aren’t Natural Born Citizens. I believe that they are, and are eligible to run for the Presidency, just as people born U.S. Citizens overseas (such as John McCain, and Ted Cruz). However, their citizenship is guarenteed by Statute, and not specifically in the Constitution. If and when Puerto Rico becomes a State, then the 14th Amendment to the Constitution will guarentee the citizenship of Puerto Ricans. But until then, they are not, according to the Constitution, one of the United States.
Of course, there is an argument that could go the other way.
I think the first thing is not every territory is treated exactly the same. I believe an incorporated territory would be covered by the 14th, and the district court has ruled that Puerto Rico has implicitly been incorporated. That hand hasn’t been forced explicitly, which leaves a gray area, but practically in almost every way, and perhaps every way if push came to shove, it is the same. A lot of those laws/codes have built up to make it hard to think otherwise. 1402 is part of what moves the ball forward, implicitly, for Puerto Rico. It is a statute, but one major step toward incorporation. The fact that incorporation gives full constitutional rights (which would include the 14th) is perhaps why foot dragging occurs over explicit incorporation. Some wiggle room.
Regarding American Samoa, their history is different than PR, and they remain unincorporated, though I do not know enough right now to guess how far along they may be on the implicit spectrum to incorporation.
The point here is that you can’t really say if Puerto Rico then American Samoa, then Guam etc. Each territory is not the same by virtue of being a territory. See the wikipedia page for a chart and more explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territories_of_the_United_States
I’ve focused on PR, and not sure I can speak to the others in specificity, but the general point is that a statute having been passed does not preclude a territory from being covered by the 14th, because they are coming round to the 14th *through the back door,* by building up those very statutes until any other viewpoint other than that they are implicitly incorporated is “excluded.” PR seems very much to be an example of that scenario. The others, I’m not sure, but each has to be looked at by itself in its details and context. None of them have been explicitly incorporated at any rate.
I confused you with Serpico. Spending too much time reading birther blather tends to boggle the mind.
But you are wrong. There is no “two citizen parent” requirement, nor has there ever been. However, please feel free to cite a single history textbook, civics textbook, or Constitutional law textbook which says that a natural born citizen must have two citizen parents (or even one citizen parent, for that matter).
—
Gabe, your comment is nonresponsive. I asked for something very specific: “Please explain how/where G-d defined natural born citizen.” I asked for this in response to Serpico’s statement: “A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).”
Your response does not address how/where G-d defined natural born citizen. Or, perhaps you are trying to tell me that the writings of Greek antiquity were not bestowed my man’s pen but were instead holy scripture bestowed by the gods of Greek antiquity. If that is your belief, then I will not argue since your are certainly entitled to worship your gods. But as a monotheist myself, I remain unconvinced that the pagan writings you reference support the statement that natural born citizenship is bestowed by G-d.
As for your next statement–that “all civilizations minus the ones who tend to wear opaque glasses have discussed and improved on the tenets of the meaning, natural born citizen”–I am left wondering which civilizations you believe wear opaque glasses and, again, what does that have to do with G-d’s bestowal of natural born citizenship? I know the British considered someone born within the geographic area of the British Empire to be a “natural born subject”–regardless of their parents’ citizenship–so perhaps you are saying that the British wore opaque glasses and their Anglican Church ignored the will of G-d or the will of your Greek gods? Or perhaps you are suggesting that our American civilization has been wearing opaque glasses from the start, as exemplified in our Declaration of Independence that refers to “all men … are endowed by their Creator”, rather than the more civilized and advanced tenet–“all men … are endowed through their parents” as Dred Scott set forth?
I find this all particularly fascinating because of my roots before my grandparents immigrated to the U.S.A. My ancestors lived in certain countries for about a thousand years without the rights of full citizenship. Perhaps this was because, originally, my ancestors were denied full citizenship, so their children were denied full citizenship, and thereby the next generation was denied full citizenship, and so on and so on for a thousand years. Perhaps you think this means these countries were more advanced and without opaque glasses. And indeed, the rationalization given for denying my ancestors full citizenship had everything to do with views about G-d and nature. But, in my opinon, my family was blessed when my grandparents moved to what I consider a more advanced civilization here in the U.S.A., where natural born citizenship was simply an automatic birthright, regardless of one’s family’s historical situation, and regardless of some people’s opinions about what is godly and natural.
It gets especially confusing because birthers seem to give off-topic answers to very specific questions. I asked Serpico about G-d, and Gabe answered my question with the Greeks. But then I realized that Gabe may be a pagan and we should respect his 1st Amendment right to seek religious guidance from the followers of Zeus et al.
J.D. Sue:
I don’t know if you are familiar with Herb Titus’ thoughts on biblical citizenship, but Dr. C. did an article on him about 18 months ago.
“We talked a little about Herb Titus, a lawyer who made a recent video saying Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. His argument was based along the lines of natural philosophy. However, I learned that his real objection comes from the 17th chapter of the Bible’s book of Deuteronomy. The passage goes:
’15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.’
“According to Religion Dispatches magazine, Titus has been pushing this concept since 2009.”
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/4587/meet_the_christian_reconstructionists_behind_the_latest_birther_theory_/
There is absolutely no requirement for either, let along both parents to be US citizens in order for their child to be a natural born US citizen. Any child born on US soil and subject to US jurisdiction is, as the Constitution makes explicitly clear, a natural born citizen.
—
Arthur, thanks for the reference. Seems to me that our Constitution says pretty much the same thing as that passage from Deuteronomy–that our President must be one of our countrymen, and not a foreigner. I see in the article that Titus interprets the passage by offering his own following example: if your mother is a Moabite you are not eligible to be king. Well, I can see his point (or I should say his dog whistle) since Deuteronomy 23:3 also says, ” An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever.” I think this last passage is more what Titus really has in mind; that a “Moabite” like Obama could not be President–even to the tenth generation….
Of course, Stanley Ann was not a Moabite, she was an American from Kansas. And, according to Deuteronomy 7:3–4 (or at least how Jews have always interpreted it), when there is an inter-national marriage, the child’s nationality/loyalty follows matrilineally. Regardless, Titus tries to get around this obvious thorn in his Deuteronomy argument by declaring Stanley Ann to be “a very weak mother in terms of her loyalty to the nation.” Ah, Birtherism…. You’d think they would avoid citing texts that support the complete opposite of their position, but they can’t seem to resist.
I always kind of figured (well, at least since I started doing my own thinking about that kind of thing) that the Book of Ruth was to a large extent just propaganda on behalf of my illustrious namesake, rationalizing that scandalous great-grandmother of his.
—
Can you imagine the birtherism David might have had to deal with???!!! I can just hear ancient-Orly, “That Moabite Fraud is not even of the 10th generation! He spent millions of shekels to pay off the traitorous Jonathan and that corrupt prophet Samuel!”
Might, hell! He probably had it up one side and down the other, what with being an upstart, and the most unlikely one to begin with. And foreign influence? There’s all that canoodling with Achish and the Philistines. And poor Ish-Bosheth. Then there’s that unhappy marriage to the King’s daughter, and that dancing-in-the-streets episode, and just one family problem after another. It’s a wonder he has any reputation left!
Gabe, your comment is nonresponsive.I asked for something very specific: “Please explain how/where G-d defined natural born citizen.”I asked for this in response to Serpico’s statement: “A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).”
Your response does not address how/where G-d defined natural born citizen.Or, perhaps you are trying to tell me that the writings of Greek antiquity were not bestowed my man’s pen but were instead holy scripture bestowed by the gods of Greek antiquity.If that is your belief, then I will not argue since your are certainly entitled to worship your gods.But as a monotheist myself, I remain unconvinced that the pagan writings you reference support the statement that natural born citizenship is bestowed by G-d.
As for your next statement–that “all civilizations minus the ones who tend to wear opaque glasses have discussed and improved on the tenets of the meaning, natural born citizen”–I am left wondering which civilizations you believe wear opaque glasses and, again, what does that have to do with G-d’s bestowal of natural born citizenship?I know the British considered someone born within the geographic area of the British Empire to be a “natural born subject”–regardless of their parents’ citizenship–so perhaps you are saying that the British wore opaque glasses and their Anglican Church ignored the will of G-d or the will of your Greek gods?Or perhaps you are suggesting that our American civilization has been wearing opaque glasses from the start, as exemplified in our Declaration of Independence that refers to “all men … are endowed by their Creator”, rather than the more civilized and advanced tenet–”all men … are endowed through their parents” as Dred Scott set forth?
J.D.Sue, I was answering Rickey who had attributed Serpico’s statement on God and natural born to my statement that a child is a natural born citizen if both parents are citizens of the country when the child is born.
Further the definition of natural born citizen, started with the Greeks of antiquity, really had nothing to do with their, gods.
See how distorted the opaque glasses your gang wears, you are not even able to follow
the postings on this blog of “Missouri proposes, Anti-birther bill. can you say Teleprompter?
One invitation to “The Dinner Game” is on the way.
Americans chose Obama as President, which is their right, as the Greeks can choose their leaders. I hear things aren’t going so well in Greece, though…
You seem obsessed with dinner. Will you be serving Greek food?
Dude, your punctuation rivals Orly’s. Is that a symptom of ODS in its final state?
Does not compute, neither on a grammatical nor on a logical level (how can “opaque” glasses “distort” something?).
You’re spiralling down, man…
Getting back on track…
Why do you consider the ancient Greeks an authority on the interpretation of the US Constitution? I’m sure you wouldn’t cite them as authority on the human circulatory system, or on projectile physics.
While I understand that commenters confused you with another commenter who made religious argument, isn’t the “appeal to antiquity” that you’re making very much like an appeal to the divine (since much of religion is also an appeal to antiquity)?
Plato in his Laws wrote:
and
I think that an appeal to the Greeks is in essence an appeal to the gods, only once removed.
You will note Missouri disagrees with your definition. You may want to ask yourself why your fancy mockery has no impact on the actual country, not even in a state such as Missouri considering such a bill. You may also want to ask why this country has never followed your definition.
—
And, yet, we adore him (what a man!) and still identify ourselves by the six pointed star on his shield, and Jews and Christians alike look to his lineage for the Messiah. I guess that makes us unpatriotic Moabite-lovin’ Davidbots in opaque glasses…
Lucky for us, what you believe ain’t worth a squat!
—-
Nice comment, Doc. Thanks for sharing those Plato quotes which I found very interesting.
The problem with natural law is that in many cases it is nothing more than the attribution of ones’ own prejudices to nature. It is the ultimate fallacy of “begging the question.”
At its best natural law is just a consensus of human nature.
Huh? The Supreme Court pretty clearly said in Wong Kim Ark that those who were citizens at birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment were those who would have been natural born citizens/subjects at common law.
Any status conferred by the British Nationality Act 1948 was so imposed by statute and not common law. By your reasoning, it would not be valid to determine someone’s natural status.
I have, in any event, pointed out numerous times before the problem inherent in stating that foreign nationality is disqualifying for the Presidency: This would give each and every foreign country veto power over US Presidential eligibility. Every country has the sovereign right to decide, subject to its own constitutional and legal restrictions and processes, who its nationals are. As entrenchment is theoretically impossible in the UK’s uncodified constitution, the British Parliament is free to impose British nationality on anyone or everyone if MPs see fit to do so.
The fact that someone is given nationality by British law cannot prevent the 14th Amendment from granting citizenship. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that the effect of the 14th Amendment is such that people who are citizens under it cannot be deprived of their US citizenship without their consent, even if they choose to acquire nationality under a foreign country’s laws.
—-
I agree. Funny how they put so much stock in the laws of Kenya and Indonesia, and how Orly has been appealing to the international community to help remove our President from office. Indeed, I’ve even seen her cite an article from Pravda….
Oopsie.
If one follows the definition of natural law by its proponents, it is law that is universal among all peoples. Beyond prohibitions on murder and incest with parents or siblings, what laws fit that criterion? Certainly NOT citizenship by birth laws, which are all over the map. Almost all the Western Hemisphere countries are pure jus soli, like the US is, while most of the others require one parent to be a legal resident or in some cases a citizen. None require 2 citizen parents. So the pseudo-Vattelist position is quite contrary to natural law.
Interestingly, almost all countries have universal health care and the metric system, so those are clearly part of natural law and the US really needs to get with the program.
Indeed! Well said!
I would say that The Golden Rule fits that criterion quite well.
…If only more people would try to follow such a basic concept of “doing unto others as they themselves would like done unto them”, then society would function and progress much better…
Very true! I think all societies have such a concept. Also all humans seem to understand concepts like justice, freedom, loyalty, love, etc. I was limiting myself to actual laws.
The one thing we can say is that laws about citizenship and membership in society are not universal. Quite the opposite.
The problem with the Birthers who spout “natural law” is that the do not actually know what natural law is, in the philosophical sense. Instead, they replace their own “law of natural kind” definition. In short, they see the natural as “a horse and cow are different, therefore, a ‘Kenyan’ and an American are different.” They call it Natural Law but it is not.
In other words, if anyone is inclined to discuss natural law at all here, the most basic natural law of citizenship is that each country decides for itself.
Yes. Moreover, the most basic natural law of how a country should select its leaders is that the people should choose, free of artificial rules of who is “eligible”. So, not only is birtherism not supported by natural law, it is flat out in opposition to it.
What philosohers consider natural law can differ according to time, place and other factors, like religion and politics. Stealing someone’s jug of water did not mean the same thing in Arabia as it meant in North Western Europe …
Vattel’s Law of Nations is about a different look at law. Not Naturrecht, but Volkerrecht. What did peoples make of it. Of course, Vattel often quotes from “natural law” to provide a reason or basis for his claims, theories, theses … whatever you call them. But since natural law can differ according to circumstances, you cannot say that what Vattel says, is always universal. Though in the case that concerns us, Vattel explicitly said they do it differently in Britain, and we must respect that, because in an international context we allow a country to choose who their citizens are.
Interestingly, most philosophers believed that slavery was contrary to natural law, Although some philosophers tried to rationalize it. Slavery was seen as a result of the natural order in society. Slavery was even linked to the belief that all numbers could be reduced to natural units. Some mathematicians tried to hide that pi and the square root of two did not conform to that rule – some feared that if everybody knew, society as it existed would collapse.
Of course, if slavery and the discrimination between human beings that co-exists with it, and often continues after abolition, was contrary to natural laws – if it was really a truth self-evident that all men are born equal – there goes the assumption by the birfers that the 14th amendment is in opposition to natural law. In a sense, the ones who wrote the amendment and proposed it, saw it as part of natural law as embodied in the common law of England. It had always been that way, only one stupid Supreme Court decision had said differently, and they wanted to exclude that possibility in future.
Yeah, and doesn’t allow cranks and crackpots to make it up as they go.
It’s like debating the meaning of and how to view “nature” between Transcendentalist and Antitranscendentalist EXCEPT we have legal history. We can debate what it should be, but the law is what it is, and until such time as it is changed by man. There is a body of law and evidence that Obama is legally the President. No matter is you think “nature” is good, or evil.