Read the story below - notice what can happen when one has dual citizenship (as Obama had).... then read the article below it, on the standing LEGAL ruling from an American court on the subject. These facts ARE NEVER mentioned by the media....
Trapped in a bitter international legal battle: American boy, five, ordered to live in Ireland with his father after world court ruling
Little Jack Redmond, of Orland Park, Illinois, was put on a plane headed to Ireland to live with his father possibly for the rest of his childhood after international courts ruled against his mother in a drawn-out custody battle against her ex-boyfriend, who is Irish. Although the five-year-old boy was born in the U.S. and has spent nearly all of his young life in a Chicago suburb, he has dual citizenship, which means that he is subject to Irish laws.
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”
From reading all the material on the subject of natural born citizens I can’t help but conclude the following:
1) Citizens of united states was never properly defined by the framers mainly because only state law could define whom were born a citizen of the state which in return automatically made them a citizen of the united states under article 4.
2) Congress in 1866 recognized not all states recognized people of color as citizens and set out to define who were citizens of the united states through statute and amendment to the constitution.
3) Congress decided to recognize all persons born or naturalized as citizens of the united states as long as they could not be claimed as subjects of another country.
4) The 14th amendment was clearly designed to recognized only those politically attached to the nation (citizens) and no other.
5) Just as a naturalized citizen cannot be claimed by any other foreign power as their citizens, neither can anyone born.
Obama cannot be a citizen of the united states under the true meaning behind born or naturalized subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. Justice Gray himself confirmed this in Elk v Wilkins writing for the majority in defining subject to the jurisdiction as political attachment and not mere place of birth. This was in perfect agreement with acts of congress of 1866, 1868 and 1874.
This crazy notion that place of birth controls citizenship is so contrary to written law makes you wonder how so many got carried away with such an easily debunked belief.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”
Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfil his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.