Best Birther Lunacy Evar

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It appears to be the case that the phrase "natural born citizen" has never been clearly and unambiguously defined by either federal statute or court decision.

Then you think Congress needs to amend the Constitution to define natural born citizen. Cool. We have a process for that.

It is not the place of Congress to interpret the Constitution by statute.

The courts have interpreted the meaning of "natural born citizen" in several cases. No court has said "this is what natural born citizen means for the purposes of the Constitution" because the Courts have not considered a case in which such a pronouncement would be necessary to render justice in that particular case. Nor is it likely that they will any time soon.

[LadyShea]

It refers to those who are legally considered citizens at birth rather than citizens who have been naturalized. It's just as simple as that. Did you have to do anything or fill out papers or take tests to become a citizen? If not, you are a natural born citizen.

There isn't any ambiguity except in the minds of spookies as far as I can tell.

[Angakuk]

I don't think that it requires a constitutional amendment to define the meaning of a concept that is used in the constitution. Personally, I would be fine with either a legislative solution or a judicial solution. If the Supreme Court can define the right of privacy so that it includes the right to an abortion it is certainly within its scope to define natural born citizen.

Lady Shea, do you have a reference for your definition?

[LadyShea]

What reference do you need? Either you are born a citizen (birthright citizenship) or you become a citizen through the naturalization process.

There is no other kind of citizenship in the US

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/S...-0-0-9679.html

[ChuckF]

There's another institutional process for determining that candidates are legally qualified to hold the offices that they are running for: the electoral college. There's a whole section of the US Code about that.

And then the votes are counted in Congress, and Congress can object, too.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I don't think that it requires a constitutional amendment to define the meaning of a concept that is used in the constitution.

If you want a "clear and unambiguous definition" of natural born citizen, it is.

Personally, I would be fine with either a legislative solution or a judicial solution.

Congress does not dictate by statute what the Constitution means. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177.

If the Supreme Court can define the right of privacy so that includes the right to an abortion it is certainly within its scope to define natural born citizen.

Do you think that the Supreme Court articulated a "clear and unambiguous definition" of the right to privacy?

Until the Supreme Court actually hears a case in which the meaning of "natural born citizen" within the context of Article 2 and Amendment XII is contested, the Supreme Court has absolutely no authority whatsoever to define it. That's in the Constitution - Article III, sec. 2. Where there is no case there is no jurisdiction.

[LadyShea]

Congressional Research Service. November 14, 2011. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012.

"In addition to historical and textual analysis, numerous holdings and references in federal (and state) cases for more than a century have clearly indicated that those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction (i.e., not born to foreign diplomats or occupying military forces), even to alien parents, are citizens 'at birth' or 'by birth,' and are 'natural born,' as opposed to 'naturalized,' U.S. citizens. There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President."

[Angakuk]

Chuck, I missed in your link any reference to certifying the eligibility of a candidate.

In any case, it seems to me that leaving the question of eligibility up to processes that take place after the voting has been completed is just a little bassackwards.

As for seeking judicial remedies after the fact, who would have standing and who would have jurisdiction?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Chuck, I missed in your link any reference to certifying the eligibility of a candidate.

"Certifying" the eligibility of a candidate? Like, issuing a certificate confirming that a candidate is qualified or something? I haven't referred to that concept at all.

In any case, it seems to me that leaving the question of eligibility up to processes that take place after the voting has been completed is just a little bassackwards.

Who is leaving it up to processes that take place after voting? We have campaigns, ballot challenges. The courts and administrative agencies are open to challenges at any time in an election. And after who votes? Voters in the states? Or the people that elect the President?

As for seeking judicial remedies after the fact, who would have standing and who would have jurisdiction?

Depends on the case and the place.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

If you want a "clear and unambiguous definition" of natural born citizen, it is.

Congress does not dictate by statute what the Constitution means. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177.

Do you think that the Supreme Court articulated a "clear and unambiguous definition" of the right to privacy?

Until the Supreme Court actually hears a case in which the meaning of "natural born citizen" within the context of Article 2 and Amendment XII is contested, the Supreme Court has absolutely no authority whatsoever to define it. That's in the Constitution - Article III, sec. 2. Where there is no case there is no jurisdiction.

If by clear and unambiguous you also mean exhaustive, then no I don't think that it has done that. However, in Roe v. Wade the court clearly expanded the existing definition. I call that an exercise of the power to define.

So, in your opinion, what would it take for a case to meet the requirements such that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to rule on meaning of the term?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If by clear and unambiguous you also mean exhaustive, then no I don't think that it has done that.

You introduced the "clear and unambiguous" language. I assumed you knew what you meant by it.

However, in Roe v. Wade the court clearly expanded the existing definition. I call that an exercise of the power to define.

I will not dispute that the Supreme Court is entirely capable of engaging in exercises of the power to define.

So, in your opinion, what would it take for a case to meet the requirements such that the Supreme Court would have jurisdiction to rule on meaning of the term?

Easy. A case in which the meaning of "natural born citizen" within the context of Article 2 and Amendment XII is contested must be before the Court.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Congressional Research Service. November 14, 2011. p. 2. Retrieved February 25, 2012.

Thanks, LS. To my untrained eye that doesn't look like a legal opinion.

[LadyShea]

It's not a legal opinion Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress)

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for nearly a century.

CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

You introduced the "clear and unambiguous" language. I assumed you knew what you meant by it.

I will not dispute that the Supreme Court is entirely capable of engaging in exercises of the power to define.

Easy. A case in which the meaning of "natural born citizen" within the context of Article 2 and Amendment XII is contested must be before the Court.

I know what I meant by "clear and unambiguous" but I wasn't sure what you meant when you used it. If the court has the power to define then it surely has the power to do that in a clear and unambiguous manner.

So, what would it take to get such a case before the court? Obviously the birthers are going about it all wrong. What would be the right way to do it?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I know what I meant by "clear and unambiguous" but I wasn't sure what you meant when you used it. If the court has the power to define then it surely has the power to do that in a clear and unambiguous manner.

It has the power to define in a particular case. It is unusual that the Court would bind itself to any definition more narrow and exacting than necessary to render justice in a particular case. For example, what is the meaning of commerce . . . among the several states? The Constitution doesn't say. Congress has been wondering for about 200 years now. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on that next week. Again, in a different case.

We might find out this June. Will we, though? Probably not.

So, what would it take to get such a case before the court? Obviously the birthers are going about it all wrong. What would be the right way to do it?

The same way any case gets to the Supreme Court. Birthers are going about it all wrong because, among other things, they have no evidence to support their severely infirm legal speculation. There is no case there. The "right way to do it" is to get past the first motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or whatever other amusing infirmities birther filings suffer. That is where Birthers fail so, so spectacularly and hilariously.

[Angakuk]

Lady Shea, I see from the CRS website that a bill was introduced in 2004 to define "natural born citizen" as

(1) any person born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States; and (2) any person born outside the United States who derives citizenship at birth from U.S. citizen parents, or who is adopted by the age of 18 by U.S. citizen parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship.

Bill Summary & Status - 108th Congress (2003 - 2004) - S.2128 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

That is precisely the sort of thing that would satisfy me, even if would not satisfy Orly and Company. So far it has not advanced beyond the stage of hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary.

[LadyShea]

Well, for all intents and purposes it already is defined that way. What's unsatisfying about citizen at birth = natural born citizen? Why does there need to be yet another type of citizen?

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, for all intents and purposes it already is defined that way. What's unsatisfying about citizen at birth = natural born citizen? Why does there need to be yet another type of citizen?

Because wingnutters are trying to solve two problems:

1. get rid of Obama by questioning his legitimacy;
2. get rid of Messikans and their little brown "anchor babies"

the definition you cited above is an obstruction to both goals.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lady Shea, I see from the CRS website that a bill was introduced in 2004 to define "natural born citizen" as

Bill Summary & Status - 108th Congress (2003 - 2004) - S.2128 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

That is precisely the sort of thing that would satisfy me, even if would not satisfy Orly and Company. So far it has not advanced beyond the stage of hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary.

Really? That would satisfy you? It wouldn't actually do anything, though. It isn't up to Congress to say what the Constitution says. This is a cornerstone of federalism. I don't even really see the problem that this legislation would fix.

[LadyShea]

The racists trying to abolish that law is exactly what makes me think it is a perfectly acceptable definition of natural born citizen.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, for all intents and purposes it already is defined that way. What's unsatisfying about citizen at birth = natural born citizen? Why does there need to be yet another type of citizen?

I don't think that there needs to be "yet another type of citizen". I am just not convinced that, as a matter of law, "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" are synonymous terms. I think they ought to be made to be so, as a matter of law.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The racists trying to abolish that law is exactly what makes me think it is a perfectly acceptable definition of natural born citizen.

The racists trying to abolish which law?

[seebs]

Actually, there is an ambiguity.

Both of my parents were citizens born in the US to citizens of the US. While they were on a year's sabbatical in Switzerland, they had a baby. The baby is unambiguously a US citizen, and did not have even a chance of Swiss citizenship.

So does that count as "natural-born"? All the rulings are on the topic of whether being born in the country is sufficient, not on whether it might be necessary.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, for all intents and purposes it already is defined that way. What's unsatisfying about citizen at birth = natural born citizen? Why does there need to be yet another type of citizen?

A coworker of mine adopted a couple of kids from Columbia, at ages 2-3 or so.

Should they be citizens? "Natural-born" citizens?

The wording Angakuk cites to would make this unambiguous. The existing wording doesn't. It's not that it says yes or no; it's that we don't know for sure what it says.

[ceptimus]

Lawyers are wary of making things too clear as that would likely deprive them of future work.