Friday, July 2, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Deliberate Dumbing down of America
In your book, you charge—and document—that the decline in American education is what you call a deliberate dumbing down of America’s public school children.
The result has been the changing of our whole society and our whole culture. You can’t deny a human being an education and some moral values
without having the disastrous results which we now see all around us.
In 1965, when the federal government became actively involved financially in education and they poured millions into it, ostensibly to help the poor,
they changed schooling from and academic education, giving children the ability to understand the world around them and other cultures, languages, history, etc., to what is known as “outcome- based education.” People think that only happened in the 1990s. The philosophy changed in 1965. This was the internationalization of education.
Education no longer mattered. They were looking at using our children as little tools—basically robots in the global, planned economy. And we see the global economy coming in now.
We’re seeing children who are only in eighth grade being told to make up their minds about what they are going to do with the rest of their lives. This is a socialist, collectivist quota system, a planned economy with a certain number
of persons assigned to different slots: we saw it in the old Soviet Union, with certain number of welders. We never dreamed that we would have this failed system here. But we do.
Our dumbed down Congress passed it during the 1980s and 1990s. But they obviously don’t know what kind of system we have, since they are a product of a public school system that never taught them that we are a republic, not a democracy; that we are suppose to have a free enterprise system, not a planned economy. So the results
are very, very clear.
If you can’t see it with the results, then look at the money. How could you spend billions of dollars every year and see test scores continue to decline? Yet, every time test scores go down, people seem to be more enthusiastic about pouring
more money in. They seem to forget that prior to 1960 the United States had the finest education system in the world.
In 1895 they had a test for eighth graders in which they asked them to answer questions that I don’t think I could answer. I have that test in front of me. Questions include: give nine rules for the use of capital letters; name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications; define verse, stanza and paragraph; what are the principle parts of a verb?
Define case and illustrate each case. Why is the Atlantic coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude? They didn’t give you multiple choice, you had to write out the answers.
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said recently that the European Union is the new Soviet Union. George Bush is giving us another Soviet Union here in this hemisphere with the United States, Canada and Latin America. You would never have been able to get the American people 40 or 50 years ago to accept this.
Our children will be nothing but drones in the global economy, working for the global elite. It’s the same old totalitarianism. People wouldn’t accept
it as they do, if they hadn’t deliberately changed the country through the schools over a long period of time.
A close associate of Soviet agent Alger Hiss, in a speech to the World Health Organization, suggested “getting rid of the conscience.” He recommended
that teachers be retrained to be psychiatrists to train students that there’s no right and no wrong. We saw those types of teaching programs from the 1960s through the 1990s.
In 1965 along came Professor Benjamin Bloom with his redefinition of education. Bloom’s definition of education was accepted. He said, “The
purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students.” Not academics.
He defined good teaching as “challenging the students’ fixed beliefs.”
In my study of all this, I’ve focused on the Leipzig connection. In the late 1800s many of our American educators went to Germany. You’ve heard of “The Order” (or “Skull and Bones,” as it is often called) at Yale. Many of those people were
retrained in Germany to consider the child as an animal, basically, not as a human being. The child was to be manipulated through stimulus response, etc. B.F. Skinner and John Dewey picked up on this.
They all worked out of the University of Chicago and Columbia University. They changed the label to “outcome-based education” after the so called “Mastery Learning” had been such a disaster and so many inner city children had dropped
out in Chicago.
Yet, President Bush is putting in the same old “Mastery Learning” under the label “Direct Instruction.”
Regardless of what you call it, it is not learning. It is training.
Skinner himself said: “I could make a pigeon a high achiever,” by reinforcing it on a proper schedule. So when you hear them say “all children will learn,” they are saying, “All children will jump through the hoop.” Yes, all children will learn if you reinforce them with a reward. It’s like your dog. But our children aren’t dogs.
Instead of thinking it’s wonderful that the president and the secretary are saying “All children will learn. No child will be left behind,” you must
ask yourself what that means. It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with reaching the lowest common denominator and getting rid of any academics because corporations—certainly the multinationals—don’t want intelligent workers.
The Carnegie Corporation’s David Hornback, who has restructured education in many of the states, essentially said in his book, Human Capital, that “We don’t want educated workers. They gives us a hard time. They quit their jobs. They ask too many questions.”
So all of this just didn’t happen. The goal has long been world government, but the year 1934 was a very important year. That’s when the New York-based Carnegie Corporation published the results of a study commissioned with the American
Historical Association. The book was entitled Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies.
Did the work of the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School influence this?
The Frankfurt School philosophy was a complete attack on the social fiber of society. But the Carnegie group was more concerned with chang-Public School Kids Deliberately ‘Dumbed Down’ to be Automatons in Global Collective Orignially published in American Free Press • September 23, 2002 (p. 10-11)
=============================================================================
American public school children have been deliberately “dumbed down” and indoctrinated—rather than educated—to accept the global plantation and the dissolution of American sovereignty and liberty. That’s the shocking thesis put forth in a carefully-documented 750-page volume entitled The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, by Charlotte Iserbyt. A former school board member who sent her children to public schools, Mrs. Iserbyt was a longtime supporter of Ronald Reagan and was appointed to the U.S. Department of Education by Regean, only to be fired in 1982 after she objected to—and later leaked documents exposing—top-level agreements between the administration and the Soviet Union for the purpose of redirecting the course of American Education.
Mrs. Iserbyt was the guest on the Aug. 25 broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly callin talk forum sponsored by American Free Press with host Tom Valentine. An edited transcription of the interview follows. Valentine’s questions are in boldface. Mrs. Iserbyt’s responses are in regular text.
Benjamin Bloom Wikipedia
EXCERPT:
February 21, 1913 – September 13, 1999) was a Jewish-American educational psychologist who made contributions to the classification of educational objectives and to the theory of mastery-learning. He also directed a research team which conducted a major investigation into the development of exceptional talent whose results are relevant to the question of eminence, exceptional achievement, and greatness[1] .
[edit] Biography
Benjamin S. Bloom was born on February 21, 1913, in Lansford, Pennsylvania. He received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Pennsylvania State University in 1935 and a Ph.D. in education from the University of Chicago in March 1942. He became a staff member of the Board of Examinations at the University of Chicago in 1940 and served in that capacity until 1943, when he became university examiner, a position he held until 1959. He received his initial appointment as an instructor in the department of education at the University of Chicago in 1944 and was eventually appointed Charles H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor there in 1970. He also served as educational adviser to the governments of Israel, India, and numerous other nations. Bloom died on September 13, 1999.
Outcome Based Education OBE
EXCERPT:
2) OBE uses students as guinea pigs in a vast social experiment. OBE advocates are not able to produce any replicable research or pilot studies to show that it works. OBE is being forced on entire state school systems without any evidence that it has been tried anywhere and found effective.
The best test of an OBE-type system was Chicago's experiment in the 1970s with Professor Benjamin Bloom's Mastery Learning (ML), which is essentially the same as OBE. ML was a colossal failure and was abandoned in disgrace in 1982. The test scores proved to be appallingly low and the illiteracy rate became a national scandal. Bloom, the father of ML, is well known for his statement that "the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." (All Our Children Learning, page 180.)
Prof Benjamin Bloom's Mastery Learning
EXCERPT:
Levels of Learning
Benjamin Bloom
(1913–99)
PROFESSOR Benjamin Bloom of Chicago University and co-workers that met from 1948 to 1953, devised a stairway with six steps to learning. The six steps (read: levels) are rough estimates. They are not absolute, nor do they include learning of confluent symbols as a possible step above evaluation, provided such imagery rests on and builds on fit evaluations and estimates. The ability to observe is not included in this model either. Observational skills can be fostered or trained to your advantage. Relaxation and even boredom should help it.
Also know that other systems or hierarchies have been devised. But Bloom's taxonomy is easily understood and widely applied.
In your book, you charge—and document—that the decline in American education is what you call a deliberate dumbing down of America’s public school children.
The result has been the changing of our whole society and our whole culture. You can’t deny a human being an education and some moral values
without having the disastrous results which we now see all around us.
In 1965, when the federal government became actively involved financially in education and they poured millions into it, ostensibly to help the poor,
they changed schooling from and academic education, giving children the ability to understand the world around them and other cultures, languages, history, etc., to what is known as “outcome- based education.” People think that only happened in the 1990s. The philosophy changed in 1965. This was the internationalization of education.
Education no longer mattered. They were looking at using our children as little tools—basically robots in the global, planned economy. And we see the global economy coming in now.
We’re seeing children who are only in eighth grade being told to make up their minds about what they are going to do with the rest of their lives. This is a socialist, collectivist quota system, a planned economy with a certain number
of persons assigned to different slots: we saw it in the old Soviet Union, with certain number of welders. We never dreamed that we would have this failed system here. But we do.
Our dumbed down Congress passed it during the 1980s and 1990s. But they obviously don’t know what kind of system we have, since they are a product of a public school system that never taught them that we are a republic, not a democracy; that we are suppose to have a free enterprise system, not a planned economy. So the results
are very, very clear.
If you can’t see it with the results, then look at the money. How could you spend billions of dollars every year and see test scores continue to decline? Yet, every time test scores go down, people seem to be more enthusiastic about pouring
more money in. They seem to forget that prior to 1960 the United States had the finest education system in the world.
In 1895 they had a test for eighth graders in which they asked them to answer questions that I don’t think I could answer. I have that test in front of me. Questions include: give nine rules for the use of capital letters; name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications; define verse, stanza and paragraph; what are the principle parts of a verb?
Define case and illustrate each case. Why is the Atlantic coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude? They didn’t give you multiple choice, you had to write out the answers.
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said recently that the European Union is the new Soviet Union. George Bush is giving us another Soviet Union here in this hemisphere with the United States, Canada and Latin America. You would never have been able to get the American people 40 or 50 years ago to accept this.
Our children will be nothing but drones in the global economy, working for the global elite. It’s the same old totalitarianism. People wouldn’t accept
it as they do, if they hadn’t deliberately changed the country through the schools over a long period of time.
A close associate of Soviet agent Alger Hiss, in a speech to the World Health Organization, suggested “getting rid of the conscience.” He recommended
that teachers be retrained to be psychiatrists to train students that there’s no right and no wrong. We saw those types of teaching programs from the 1960s through the 1990s.
In 1965 along came Professor Benjamin Bloom with his redefinition of education. Bloom’s definition of education was accepted. He said, “The
purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students.” Not academics.
He defined good teaching as “challenging the students’ fixed beliefs.”
In my study of all this, I’ve focused on the Leipzig connection. In the late 1800s many of our American educators went to Germany. You’ve heard of “The Order” (or “Skull and Bones,” as it is often called) at Yale. Many of those people were
retrained in Germany to consider the child as an animal, basically, not as a human being. The child was to be manipulated through stimulus response, etc. B.F. Skinner and John Dewey picked up on this.
They all worked out of the University of Chicago and Columbia University. They changed the label to “outcome-based education” after the so called “Mastery Learning” had been such a disaster and so many inner city children had dropped
out in Chicago.
Yet, President Bush is putting in the same old “Mastery Learning” under the label “Direct Instruction.”
Regardless of what you call it, it is not learning. It is training.
Skinner himself said: “I could make a pigeon a high achiever,” by reinforcing it on a proper schedule. So when you hear them say “all children will learn,” they are saying, “All children will jump through the hoop.” Yes, all children will learn if you reinforce them with a reward. It’s like your dog. But our children aren’t dogs.
Instead of thinking it’s wonderful that the president and the secretary are saying “All children will learn. No child will be left behind,” you must
ask yourself what that means. It has nothing to do with education. It has to do with reaching the lowest common denominator and getting rid of any academics because corporations—certainly the multinationals—don’t want intelligent workers.
The Carnegie Corporation’s David Hornback, who has restructured education in many of the states, essentially said in his book, Human Capital, that “We don’t want educated workers. They gives us a hard time. They quit their jobs. They ask too many questions.”
So all of this just didn’t happen. The goal has long been world government, but the year 1934 was a very important year. That’s when the New York-based Carnegie Corporation published the results of a study commissioned with the American
Historical Association. The book was entitled Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies.
Did the work of the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School influence this?
The Frankfurt School philosophy was a complete attack on the social fiber of society. But the Carnegie group was more concerned with chang-Public School Kids Deliberately ‘Dumbed Down’ to be Automatons in Global Collective Orignially published in American Free Press • September 23, 2002 (p. 10-11)
=============================================================================
American public school children have been deliberately “dumbed down” and indoctrinated—rather than educated—to accept the global plantation and the dissolution of American sovereignty and liberty. That’s the shocking thesis put forth in a carefully-documented 750-page volume entitled The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, by Charlotte Iserbyt. A former school board member who sent her children to public schools, Mrs. Iserbyt was a longtime supporter of Ronald Reagan and was appointed to the U.S. Department of Education by Regean, only to be fired in 1982 after she objected to—and later leaked documents exposing—top-level agreements between the administration and the Soviet Union for the purpose of redirecting the course of American Education.
Mrs. Iserbyt was the guest on the Aug. 25 broadcast of Radio Free America, the weekly callin talk forum sponsored by American Free Press with host Tom Valentine. An edited transcription of the interview follows. Valentine’s questions are in boldface. Mrs. Iserbyt’s responses are in regular text.
Benjamin Bloom Wikipedia
EXCERPT:
February 21, 1913 – September 13, 1999) was a Jewish-American educational psychologist who made contributions to the classification of educational objectives and to the theory of mastery-learning. He also directed a research team which conducted a major investigation into the development of exceptional talent whose results are relevant to the question of eminence, exceptional achievement, and greatness[1] .
[edit] Biography
Benjamin S. Bloom was born on February 21, 1913, in Lansford, Pennsylvania. He received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Pennsylvania State University in 1935 and a Ph.D. in education from the University of Chicago in March 1942. He became a staff member of the Board of Examinations at the University of Chicago in 1940 and served in that capacity until 1943, when he became university examiner, a position he held until 1959. He received his initial appointment as an instructor in the department of education at the University of Chicago in 1944 and was eventually appointed Charles H. Swift Distinguished Service Professor there in 1970. He also served as educational adviser to the governments of Israel, India, and numerous other nations. Bloom died on September 13, 1999.
Outcome Based Education OBE
EXCERPT:
2) OBE uses students as guinea pigs in a vast social experiment. OBE advocates are not able to produce any replicable research or pilot studies to show that it works. OBE is being forced on entire state school systems without any evidence that it has been tried anywhere and found effective.
The best test of an OBE-type system was Chicago's experiment in the 1970s with Professor Benjamin Bloom's Mastery Learning (ML), which is essentially the same as OBE. ML was a colossal failure and was abandoned in disgrace in 1982. The test scores proved to be appallingly low and the illiteracy rate became a national scandal. Bloom, the father of ML, is well known for his statement that "the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students." (All Our Children Learning, page 180.)
Prof Benjamin Bloom's Mastery Learning
EXCERPT:
Levels of Learning
Benjamin Bloom
(1913–99)
PROFESSOR Benjamin Bloom of Chicago University and co-workers that met from 1948 to 1953, devised a stairway with six steps to learning. The six steps (read: levels) are rough estimates. They are not absolute, nor do they include learning of confluent symbols as a possible step above evaluation, provided such imagery rests on and builds on fit evaluations and estimates. The ability to observe is not included in this model either. Observational skills can be fostered or trained to your advantage. Relaxation and even boredom should help it.
Also know that other systems or hierarchies have been devised. But Bloom's taxonomy is easily understood and widely applied.
Mensa International
EXCERPT:
It was to be free from all social distinctions (racial, religious, etc.), represented by the name of the organization, which comprises two Latin words: mens, which means "mind;" and mensa, which means "table", indicating that it is a round-table society of minds. Mensa also was to be a non-political organization, reflected in its constitution: "Mensa encompasses members representing many points of view. Consequently, Mensa as an organization shall not express an opinion as being that of Mensa, take any political action other than the publication of the results of its investigations, or have any ideological, philosophical, political, or religious affiliations."
Pension Benefit Guaranty Group Fraud
EXCERPT:
Please do the other 40-million hard-working American citizens who still have defined-benefit pension plans a huge favor by clicking on 'SHARE' above so that the rest of the global community are made aware of the lengths that the Bush administration and Wall Street banks went to steal pension plans from employees and retirees in Chapter 11 bankruptcies!
Kindly note the cc addees on this November 2006 letter to District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Did not United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to report this matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice for investigation? Where was the Securities and Exchange Commission Public Company Accounting Oversight Board overview of Kirkland & Ellis?
Did it not raise eyebrows in DC that United Airlines Chief Bankruptcy Kirkland & Ellis Attorney Jamie Sprayregen accepted a position at Goldman-Sachs immediately upon bankruptcy exit, indicative of a possible conflict of interest? Goldman-Sachs was a major secured creditor in the United Airlines bankruptcy. Mr. Spreyregen is currently re-employed at Kirkland & Ellis.
Why did it take over two years for the Securities and Exchange Commission to acknowlege their failure to investigate Sarbanes-Oxley allegations? Where is the Department of Justice?
Sully Sullenberger pay has been cut 40%
EXCERPT:
Sullenberger, a 58-year-old who joined a US Airways predecessor in 1980, told the House aviation subcommittee that his pay has been cut 40 percent in recent years and his pension has been terminated and replaced with a promise "worth pennies on the dollar" from the federally created Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. These cuts followed a wave of airline bankruptcies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks compounded by the current recession, he said.
"The bankruptcies were used by some as a fishing expedition to get what they could not get in normal times," Sullenberger said of the airlines. He said the problems began with the deregulation of the industry in the 1970s.
The reduced compensation has placed "pilots and their families in an untenable financial situation," Sullenberger said. "I do not know a single professional airline pilot who wants his or her children to follow in their footsteps."
The subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard from the crew of Flight 1549, the air traffic controller who handled the flight and aviation experts to examine what safety lessons could be learned from the accident.
Sullenberger's copilot Jeffrey B. Skiles said unless federal laws are revised to improve labor-management relations "experienced crews in the cockpit will be a thing of the past." And Sullenberger added that without experienced pilots "we will see negative consequences to the flying public."
Sullenberger himself has started a consulting business to help make ends meet. Skiles added, "For the last six years, I have worked seven days a week between my two jobs just to maintain a middle class standard of living."
EXCERPT:
It was to be free from all social distinctions (racial, religious, etc.), represented by the name of the organization, which comprises two Latin words: mens, which means "mind;" and mensa, which means "table", indicating that it is a round-table society of minds. Mensa also was to be a non-political organization, reflected in its constitution: "Mensa encompasses members representing many points of view. Consequently, Mensa as an organization shall not express an opinion as being that of Mensa, take any political action other than the publication of the results of its investigations, or have any ideological, philosophical, political, or religious affiliations."
Pension Benefit Guaranty Group Fraud
EXCERPT:
Please do the other 40-million hard-working American citizens who still have defined-benefit pension plans a huge favor by clicking on 'SHARE' above so that the rest of the global community are made aware of the lengths that the Bush administration and Wall Street banks went to steal pension plans from employees and retirees in Chapter 11 bankruptcies!
Kindly note the cc addees on this November 2006 letter to District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Did not United Airlines CEO Glenn Tilton have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to report this matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice for investigation? Where was the Securities and Exchange Commission Public Company Accounting Oversight Board overview of Kirkland & Ellis?
Did it not raise eyebrows in DC that United Airlines Chief Bankruptcy Kirkland & Ellis Attorney Jamie Sprayregen accepted a position at Goldman-Sachs immediately upon bankruptcy exit, indicative of a possible conflict of interest? Goldman-Sachs was a major secured creditor in the United Airlines bankruptcy. Mr. Spreyregen is currently re-employed at Kirkland & Ellis.
Why did it take over two years for the Securities and Exchange Commission to acknowlege their failure to investigate Sarbanes-Oxley allegations? Where is the Department of Justice?
Sully Sullenberger pay has been cut 40%
EXCERPT:
Sullenberger, a 58-year-old who joined a US Airways predecessor in 1980, told the House aviation subcommittee that his pay has been cut 40 percent in recent years and his pension has been terminated and replaced with a promise "worth pennies on the dollar" from the federally created Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. These cuts followed a wave of airline bankruptcies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks compounded by the current recession, he said.
"The bankruptcies were used by some as a fishing expedition to get what they could not get in normal times," Sullenberger said of the airlines. He said the problems began with the deregulation of the industry in the 1970s.
The reduced compensation has placed "pilots and their families in an untenable financial situation," Sullenberger said. "I do not know a single professional airline pilot who wants his or her children to follow in their footsteps."
The subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard from the crew of Flight 1549, the air traffic controller who handled the flight and aviation experts to examine what safety lessons could be learned from the accident.
Sullenberger's copilot Jeffrey B. Skiles said unless federal laws are revised to improve labor-management relations "experienced crews in the cockpit will be a thing of the past." And Sullenberger added that without experienced pilots "we will see negative consequences to the flying public."
Sullenberger himself has started a consulting business to help make ends meet. Skiles added, "For the last six years, I have worked seven days a week between my two jobs just to maintain a middle class standard of living."
Eugene J. Keogh Award for Distinguished Public Service
EXCERPT:
1999
Louis J. Freeh '84 LAW
Whatever happened to FBI director Louis Freeh
EXCERPT:
Former FBI Chief Louis Freeh Sells his Services to Corporate Elite
By Laurie Bennett
May 26, 2008
What’s Louis Freeh been up to since leaving the FBI and writing about his already-public feud with Bill Clinton in a best-selling memoir? He’s been networking in corporate, government and political circles, making money all the while.
Freeh is a director of Fannie Mae and Bristol Myers, positions that pay a combined $335,000 annually. He’s also an adviser to duPont. Last year President Bush appointed him to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Until Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, Freeh was his senior homeland security adviser and head of campaign operations in Delaware, his home state. More recently, he has contributed to the McCain campaign.
Freeh’s primary focus, though, is Freeh Group International, a consulting firm that keeps a low profile and doesn’t publicize its client list. The Freeh Group isn’t registered as a lobbyist or as a government contractor. Its services, such as homeland and global security and “strategic management of complex and sensitive queries,” are aimed at corporations operating in the global marketplace.
The management team also includes William Esposito, former deputy director of the FBI; Stanley Sporkin, former enforcement director of the Securities and Exchange commission and general counsel to the CIA; and former federal judge Eugene Sullivan.
The firm’s British operations are headed by former High Court Judge Stephen Mitchell. Liliana Ferraro, former Italian National Supreme Court justice, manages the business in Italy.
The company emphasizes its expertise in fighting organized crime. As noted on its web site, Ferraro presided over several high-profile Mafia trials. Esposito’s primary expertise is in white-collar and organized crime.
As an assistant U.S. attorney, Freeh headed the New York office’s organized-crime unit. Indeed, he gave top billing to the mob when he titled his 2005 memoir, My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror.
Readers who had expected new insights into the global battle against terrorism were disappointed. Bryan Burrough, reviewing the book for The New York Times, called it “My FBI for Dummies.”
Freeh was this year’s commencement speaker at Hillsdale College, where his brother John is an English professor.
“Your integrity and your honor are what’s most important at the end of the day,” he told the graduates. “… Don’t be afraid to take action and don’t be afraid to put yourself at risk.”
http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?p=3161059
Louis Freeh
EXCERPTS:
Major events during Freeh's tenure as F.B.I. Director
Shortly before and during Freeh's tenure, the FBI was involved in a number of high-profile incidents and internal investigations.
[edit] Civil liberties
Among other Justice Department officials (including Attorney General Reno), Freeh was named a co-defendant in Zieper v. Metzinger, a 1999 federal court case.
[edit] Ruby Ridge
Main article: Ruby Ridge
An investigation of the August 1992 incident at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in which an FBI sharpshooter killed the wife of a wanted suspect, was ongoing when Freeh became Director. A paramilitary FBI unit, the Hostage Rescue Team, was present at the incident; Freeh later said that had he been director, he would not have involved the HRT. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi was later charged with manslaughter; Freeh said that he was "deeply disappointed" at the charges, filed by a county prosecutor and later dropped[11].[12][13]
Freeh was not censured for alleged managerial failures in the investigation of the incident, although a Justice Department inquiry had made such a recommendation.[14]
[edit] Waco
Main article: Waco Siege
An investigation of the events of April 19, 1993 when Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Special Agents served a warrant on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas was ongoing during Freeh's tenure. While the event had taken place before he became Director, a highly controversial investigation ensued, including allegations of a cover-up by the FBI, and tensions developed between Freeh and Janet Reno, then-Attorney General. Reno, who had herself been blamed for mishandling of the confrontation and investigation, sent U.S. Marshals to FBI headquarters to seize Waco-related evidence.[15]
[edit] Khobar Towers bombing
Main article: Khobar Towers
Shortly before 10 a.m. on June 25, 1996, members of a terorrist group detonated a truck bomb outside building 131 (also known as Khobar Towers) of the King Abdul Aziz Airbase. Inside the building were almost exclusively members of the U.S. Air Force who were there to patrol the southern Iraqi no-fly zone enacted after the Gulf War. In the attack, 19 U.S. military personnel were killed and 372 were wounded, making this the most deadly terrorist attack on Americans abroad since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Louis Freeh said in his book My FBI that he felt the deepest about the Khobar Towers investigation, and it was not until Louis Freeh's last day in office, June 21, 2001, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia returned a 46-count indictment against 14 defendants charged with the Khobar Towers attack.[16] This was just before some of the counts would have expired due to a five-year statute of limitations.
[edit] Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Main article: Centennial Olympic Park bombing
The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information heard testimony from Freeh regarding the leaking of Richard Jewell's name to the media in connection with the bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games. Freeh testified that he did not know how the name of Jewell, who had been falsely accused in the bombings, had been leaked to the media.[17]
[edit] Montana Freemen
Main article: Montana Freemen
Freeh and the FBI were praised for the handling of the 81-day standoff between law enforcement agents and the Montana Freemen, a fringe political group. Director Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, which had issued reports critical of the Freemen and encouraged their prosecution, commended the "peaceful conclusion" to the standoff.[18]
[edit] Unabomber
Main article: Unabomber
Theodore Kaczynski, the "Unabomber," was apprehended in 1996 after his manifesto, Industrial Society and its Future, was published in the New York Times and Washington Post. Freeh and Attorney General Reno recommended publication, acceding to Kaczynski's offer to "renounce terrorism" if it were. A tip from the bomber's brother David, who recognized the writing style, assisted the FBI in his capture.[19][20]
[edit] Robert Hanssen
Main article: Robert Hanssen
Robert Hanssen, a 25-year veteran of the FBI, was arrested in 2001 and charged with spying for the Soviet Union and Russia, beginning in 1985. Freeh called the security breach "exceptionally grave" and appointed a panel, led by former FBI and Central Intelligence Agency head William Webster, to review the damage done by Hanssen's espionage.[21]
[edit] Wen Ho Lee
Main article: Wen Ho Lee
In 1999, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee was fired from his job; in 1999 he was arrested and held without trial for 278 days while his handling of sensitive nuclear information was investigated. Freeh accused him of downloading a "portable, personal trove" of U.S. nuclear secrets. Lee pled guilty to one of the fifty-nine counts brought against him, after which he was freed from jail.[22]
A Justice Department report of the investigation of Lee said that Director Freeh was not fully informed about the investigation until over a year after it began, and that the F.B.I. as a whole "bungled" the case.[23]
[edit] Chinese political and campaign fundraising controversies
Main articles: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and Timeline of Cox Report controversy
In February 1997, the media announced that Freeh personally blocked the sharing of intelligence information regarding China's alleged plot to influence U.S. elections with the White House.[24][25] The following month, Freeh testified before Congress that his investigation into campaign finance irregularities of the 1996 U.S. presidential and Congressional campaigns was not focusing on individual criminal acts, but on a possible conspiracy involving China.[26] Later that year, Freeh wrote a memorandum to Attorney General Janet Reno calling for an Independent Counsel to investigate the fund-raising scandal. In his memo he wrote: "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an Independent Counsel".[27] Reno rejected his request.
[edit] Other cases
Other cases handled by the FBI during Freeh's tenure included the death of White House counsel Vince Foster (in 1993), allegations of incompetence at the FBI crime laboratory, investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing (1995) and the capture and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh, and investigation of the crash of TWA Flight 800 [citation needed].
[edit] Criticism
In 2000, the editorial staff of Business Week called for the resignation of Director Freeh, citing the Carnivore communications monitoring system, the Waco cover-up, and insubordination to Attorney General Reno as reasons.[28]
A National Geographic television special titled "The FBI" stated that Mr. Freeh was averse to the usage of computers. He had his removed from his office, did not use E-mail, and more importantly, did nothing to update the old and poorly working FBI computer system.
EXCERPT:
1999
Louis J. Freeh '84 LAW
Whatever happened to FBI director Louis Freeh
EXCERPT:
Former FBI Chief Louis Freeh Sells his Services to Corporate Elite
By Laurie Bennett
May 26, 2008
What’s Louis Freeh been up to since leaving the FBI and writing about his already-public feud with Bill Clinton in a best-selling memoir? He’s been networking in corporate, government and political circles, making money all the while.
Freeh is a director of Fannie Mae and Bristol Myers, positions that pay a combined $335,000 annually. He’s also an adviser to duPont. Last year President Bush appointed him to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.
Until Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the presidential race, Freeh was his senior homeland security adviser and head of campaign operations in Delaware, his home state. More recently, he has contributed to the McCain campaign.
Freeh’s primary focus, though, is Freeh Group International, a consulting firm that keeps a low profile and doesn’t publicize its client list. The Freeh Group isn’t registered as a lobbyist or as a government contractor. Its services, such as homeland and global security and “strategic management of complex and sensitive queries,” are aimed at corporations operating in the global marketplace.
The management team also includes William Esposito, former deputy director of the FBI; Stanley Sporkin, former enforcement director of the Securities and Exchange commission and general counsel to the CIA; and former federal judge Eugene Sullivan.
The firm’s British operations are headed by former High Court Judge Stephen Mitchell. Liliana Ferraro, former Italian National Supreme Court justice, manages the business in Italy.
The company emphasizes its expertise in fighting organized crime. As noted on its web site, Ferraro presided over several high-profile Mafia trials. Esposito’s primary expertise is in white-collar and organized crime.
As an assistant U.S. attorney, Freeh headed the New York office’s organized-crime unit. Indeed, he gave top billing to the mob when he titled his 2005 memoir, My FBI: Bringing Down the Mafia, Investigating Bill Clinton, and Fighting the War on Terror.
Readers who had expected new insights into the global battle against terrorism were disappointed. Bryan Burrough, reviewing the book for The New York Times, called it “My FBI for Dummies.”
Freeh was this year’s commencement speaker at Hillsdale College, where his brother John is an English professor.
“Your integrity and your honor are what’s most important at the end of the day,” he told the graduates. “… Don’t be afraid to take action and don’t be afraid to put yourself at risk.”
http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?p=3161059
Louis Freeh
EXCERPTS:
Major events during Freeh's tenure as F.B.I. Director
Shortly before and during Freeh's tenure, the FBI was involved in a number of high-profile incidents and internal investigations.
[edit] Civil liberties
Among other Justice Department officials (including Attorney General Reno), Freeh was named a co-defendant in Zieper v. Metzinger, a 1999 federal court case.
[edit] Ruby Ridge
Main article: Ruby Ridge
An investigation of the August 1992 incident at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in which an FBI sharpshooter killed the wife of a wanted suspect, was ongoing when Freeh became Director. A paramilitary FBI unit, the Hostage Rescue Team, was present at the incident; Freeh later said that had he been director, he would not have involved the HRT. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi was later charged with manslaughter; Freeh said that he was "deeply disappointed" at the charges, filed by a county prosecutor and later dropped[11].[12][13]
Freeh was not censured for alleged managerial failures in the investigation of the incident, although a Justice Department inquiry had made such a recommendation.[14]
[edit] Waco
Main article: Waco Siege
An investigation of the events of April 19, 1993 when Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Special Agents served a warrant on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco, Texas was ongoing during Freeh's tenure. While the event had taken place before he became Director, a highly controversial investigation ensued, including allegations of a cover-up by the FBI, and tensions developed between Freeh and Janet Reno, then-Attorney General. Reno, who had herself been blamed for mishandling of the confrontation and investigation, sent U.S. Marshals to FBI headquarters to seize Waco-related evidence.[15]
[edit] Khobar Towers bombing
Main article: Khobar Towers
Shortly before 10 a.m. on June 25, 1996, members of a terorrist group detonated a truck bomb outside building 131 (also known as Khobar Towers) of the King Abdul Aziz Airbase. Inside the building were almost exclusively members of the U.S. Air Force who were there to patrol the southern Iraqi no-fly zone enacted after the Gulf War. In the attack, 19 U.S. military personnel were killed and 372 were wounded, making this the most deadly terrorist attack on Americans abroad since the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing. Louis Freeh said in his book My FBI that he felt the deepest about the Khobar Towers investigation, and it was not until Louis Freeh's last day in office, June 21, 2001, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia returned a 46-count indictment against 14 defendants charged with the Khobar Towers attack.[16] This was just before some of the counts would have expired due to a five-year statute of limitations.
[edit] Centennial Olympic Park bombing
Main article: Centennial Olympic Park bombing
The U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information heard testimony from Freeh regarding the leaking of Richard Jewell's name to the media in connection with the bombing at the 1996 Olympic Games. Freeh testified that he did not know how the name of Jewell, who had been falsely accused in the bombings, had been leaked to the media.[17]
[edit] Montana Freemen
Main article: Montana Freemen
Freeh and the FBI were praised for the handling of the 81-day standoff between law enforcement agents and the Montana Freemen, a fringe political group. Director Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, which had issued reports critical of the Freemen and encouraged their prosecution, commended the "peaceful conclusion" to the standoff.[18]
[edit] Unabomber
Main article: Unabomber
Theodore Kaczynski, the "Unabomber," was apprehended in 1996 after his manifesto, Industrial Society and its Future, was published in the New York Times and Washington Post. Freeh and Attorney General Reno recommended publication, acceding to Kaczynski's offer to "renounce terrorism" if it were. A tip from the bomber's brother David, who recognized the writing style, assisted the FBI in his capture.[19][20]
[edit] Robert Hanssen
Main article: Robert Hanssen
Robert Hanssen, a 25-year veteran of the FBI, was arrested in 2001 and charged with spying for the Soviet Union and Russia, beginning in 1985. Freeh called the security breach "exceptionally grave" and appointed a panel, led by former FBI and Central Intelligence Agency head William Webster, to review the damage done by Hanssen's espionage.[21]
[edit] Wen Ho Lee
Main article: Wen Ho Lee
In 1999, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee was fired from his job; in 1999 he was arrested and held without trial for 278 days while his handling of sensitive nuclear information was investigated. Freeh accused him of downloading a "portable, personal trove" of U.S. nuclear secrets. Lee pled guilty to one of the fifty-nine counts brought against him, after which he was freed from jail.[22]
A Justice Department report of the investigation of Lee said that Director Freeh was not fully informed about the investigation until over a year after it began, and that the F.B.I. as a whole "bungled" the case.[23]
[edit] Chinese political and campaign fundraising controversies
Main articles: 1996 United States campaign finance controversy and Timeline of Cox Report controversy
In February 1997, the media announced that Freeh personally blocked the sharing of intelligence information regarding China's alleged plot to influence U.S. elections with the White House.[24][25] The following month, Freeh testified before Congress that his investigation into campaign finance irregularities of the 1996 U.S. presidential and Congressional campaigns was not focusing on individual criminal acts, but on a possible conspiracy involving China.[26] Later that year, Freeh wrote a memorandum to Attorney General Janet Reno calling for an Independent Counsel to investigate the fund-raising scandal. In his memo he wrote: "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an Independent Counsel".[27] Reno rejected his request.
[edit] Other cases
Other cases handled by the FBI during Freeh's tenure included the death of White House counsel Vince Foster (in 1993), allegations of incompetence at the FBI crime laboratory, investigation of the Oklahoma City bombing (1995) and the capture and prosecution of Timothy McVeigh, and investigation of the crash of TWA Flight 800 [citation needed].
[edit] Criticism
In 2000, the editorial staff of Business Week called for the resignation of Director Freeh, citing the Carnivore communications monitoring system, the Waco cover-up, and insubordination to Attorney General Reno as reasons.[28]
A National Geographic television special titled "The FBI" stated that Mr. Freeh was averse to the usage of computers. He had his removed from his office, did not use E-mail, and more importantly, did nothing to update the old and poorly working FBI computer system.
I wonder if all these employees of banks had 'Janitors-Dead Peasants Insurance' on them?
Janitor's Insurance or Dead Peasant Insurance
EXCERPT:
Janitor Insurance
Many of us may not know it, but we may be worth more to our employers dead than alive. The so-called dead peasant, or dead janitor insurance is insurance purchased by companies on low-level employees. This practice is generally done without the knowledge of the employee. When the employee dies, the family receives no benefit. Instead the face value of the policy goes to the company, tax-free[1]. This insurance is also known as corporate-owned Life Insurance or COLI[2].
Bank of America-Wells Fargo employees aboard crashed plane 1549 (Hudson)Investment Banking
BofA, Wells Employees Were Aboard Crashed Plane
January 15, 2009, 7:04 pm
What was perhaps the most riveting story in New York on Thursday afternoon had almost nothing to do with finance: a US Airways plane that plunged into the Hudson River on the West Side of Manhattan.
But there was still a banking angle to the story. Among the roughly 150 people on the plane, which was bound for Charlotte, N.C., were employees from both Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Authorities said everyone was safely escorted off the plane.
Bank of America, the troubled Charlotte-based bank, said 23 employees were aboard the plane. Wells Fargo, which acquired Charlotte-based Wachovia, had three employees on board.
A Wells Fargo spokeswoman told Dow Jones Newswires that “all three are safe.”
Bankers figured prominently in another aircraft crash that ended in a New York river. As DealBook’s Andrew Ross Sorkin reported in 2005, a helicopter carrying top executives from MBNA, the credit card giant, fell into the East River.
No one was seriously hurt. But days later, the deal that the MBNA executives had come to negotiate in secret was, as the company failed to sell itself to Wachovia. MBNA quickly sold itself to Bank of America for $35 billion.
Go to Article from Dow Jones via CNN Money »
Go to Article from The New York Times »
Business as usual for bankers, eh?
EXCERPT:
But then the unthinkable happened: the helicopter carrying the MBNA executives back to the Delaware headquarters plunged into the East River less than a minute after takeoff. Despite several harrowing moments trapped underwater in the copter, the executives managed to escape largely unscathed.
Their deal with Wachovia was not so lucky. Four days later, Wachovia's board voted against pursuing a purchase, deciding that the asking price was too high.
At the time of the widely covered crash, the company said the executives were in Manhattan for a routine business meeting. But the mystery of what they were up to did not become clear until yesterday: Mr. Hammonds and his colleagues, who returned to work and a series of marathon conference calls only 24 hours after the accident, were scrambling to sell their company, ultimately reaching a deal with Bank of America for $35 billion.
Executives involved in the talks and that helicopter ride reconstructed the behind-the-scenes maneuvers that led to the sale of MBNA.
The helicopter crash on that hot, humid Friday put an unwanted spotlight on MBNA, which was hoping to keep its "for sale" sign under wraps. That did not stop the rumors among an astute group of investors who frequent online message boards.
On Yahoo, the questions started almost immediately. One message was "Top execs together on 1 helicopter???" Another said, "wht were 6 executive doing in chopp." A user with the logon name kennyrbowman seemed to know exactly what had happened. In a message titled, "Reason they were all in NYC to start with ... ," he explained that the MBNA executives were having "a big pow-wow with Wachovia trying to figure out how to word the takeover/buyout."
The potential leak was particularly troubling to Louis J. Freeh, MBNA's general counsel, according to the executives. Mr. Freeh, who was the director of the F.B.I. from 1993 to 2001, instructed the lawyers to monitor the message boards and news wires.
Mention of flight 1549
False Flag Operations: The Crisis Route to the New World Order
- by Deanna Spingola, 10 May 2010
EXCERPT:
These catastrophes include the US Airways Flight 1549 being ditched in the Hudson River adjacent Manhattan, New York City, on January 15, 2009. Polish President Lech Kaczynski, along with numerous other opposition party officials, died in a mysterious plane crash in Smolensk, Russia on April 10, 2010. This “accident” probably had more to do with Kaczynski’s opposition to a $100 billion dollar contract with Russia’s Gazprom Gas deal than with problematic weather. It would have made Poland 100% dependent on Russian gas for the next 28 years.38 See the remarkable digital enhancement of the amateur plane crash site footage.
The Account Has Been Suspended
[doveofo] NESARA Ends Illuminati Bankers; US Airways Flight 1549
Jan 28, 2009 ... Then the three bankers got on the US Airways flight 1549. The European Illuminati bankers have no intention of ever paying out these trading ...
· www.nesara.us/doverpts09/January_28_2009.htm
The Account Has Been Suspended
YouTube - Flight 1549 Plane Crash Hudson River 1-15-2009 NYC
Jan 15, 2009 ... US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320 headed from New York's LaGuardia ... Assassination By Plane Crash Of Top American Bankers Fails In US 1 year ago ... It really had me going. Looks like there having a great time. ... Airbus A320 Flight 1549 Crash Landing in the Hudson River--Part 3 3:56 ...
· Privacy Protection: Transaction Protection: · www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFGHEFyWBv8
Janitor's Insurance or Dead Peasant Insurance
EXCERPT:
Janitor Insurance
Many of us may not know it, but we may be worth more to our employers dead than alive. The so-called dead peasant, or dead janitor insurance is insurance purchased by companies on low-level employees. This practice is generally done without the knowledge of the employee. When the employee dies, the family receives no benefit. Instead the face value of the policy goes to the company, tax-free[1]. This insurance is also known as corporate-owned Life Insurance or COLI[2].
Bank of America-Wells Fargo employees aboard crashed plane 1549 (Hudson)Investment Banking
BofA, Wells Employees Were Aboard Crashed Plane
January 15, 2009, 7:04 pm
What was perhaps the most riveting story in New York on Thursday afternoon had almost nothing to do with finance: a US Airways plane that plunged into the Hudson River on the West Side of Manhattan.
But there was still a banking angle to the story. Among the roughly 150 people on the plane, which was bound for Charlotte, N.C., were employees from both Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Authorities said everyone was safely escorted off the plane.
Bank of America, the troubled Charlotte-based bank, said 23 employees were aboard the plane. Wells Fargo, which acquired Charlotte-based Wachovia, had three employees on board.
A Wells Fargo spokeswoman told Dow Jones Newswires that “all three are safe.”
Bankers figured prominently in another aircraft crash that ended in a New York river. As DealBook’s Andrew Ross Sorkin reported in 2005, a helicopter carrying top executives from MBNA, the credit card giant, fell into the East River.
No one was seriously hurt. But days later, the deal that the MBNA executives had come to negotiate in secret was, as the company failed to sell itself to Wachovia. MBNA quickly sold itself to Bank of America for $35 billion.
Go to Article from Dow Jones via CNN Money »
Go to Article from The New York Times »
Business as usual for bankers, eh?
EXCERPT:
But then the unthinkable happened: the helicopter carrying the MBNA executives back to the Delaware headquarters plunged into the East River less than a minute after takeoff. Despite several harrowing moments trapped underwater in the copter, the executives managed to escape largely unscathed.
Their deal with Wachovia was not so lucky. Four days later, Wachovia's board voted against pursuing a purchase, deciding that the asking price was too high.
At the time of the widely covered crash, the company said the executives were in Manhattan for a routine business meeting. But the mystery of what they were up to did not become clear until yesterday: Mr. Hammonds and his colleagues, who returned to work and a series of marathon conference calls only 24 hours after the accident, were scrambling to sell their company, ultimately reaching a deal with Bank of America for $35 billion.
Executives involved in the talks and that helicopter ride reconstructed the behind-the-scenes maneuvers that led to the sale of MBNA.
The helicopter crash on that hot, humid Friday put an unwanted spotlight on MBNA, which was hoping to keep its "for sale" sign under wraps. That did not stop the rumors among an astute group of investors who frequent online message boards.
On Yahoo, the questions started almost immediately. One message was "Top execs together on 1 helicopter???" Another said, "wht were 6 executive doing in chopp." A user with the logon name kennyrbowman seemed to know exactly what had happened. In a message titled, "Reason they were all in NYC to start with ... ," he explained that the MBNA executives were having "a big pow-wow with Wachovia trying to figure out how to word the takeover/buyout."
The potential leak was particularly troubling to Louis J. Freeh, MBNA's general counsel, according to the executives. Mr. Freeh, who was the director of the F.B.I. from 1993 to 2001, instructed the lawyers to monitor the message boards and news wires.
Mention of flight 1549
False Flag Operations: The Crisis Route to the New World Order
- by Deanna Spingola, 10 May 2010
EXCERPT:
These catastrophes include the US Airways Flight 1549 being ditched in the Hudson River adjacent Manhattan, New York City, on January 15, 2009. Polish President Lech Kaczynski, along with numerous other opposition party officials, died in a mysterious plane crash in Smolensk, Russia on April 10, 2010. This “accident” probably had more to do with Kaczynski’s opposition to a $100 billion dollar contract with Russia’s Gazprom Gas deal than with problematic weather. It would have made Poland 100% dependent on Russian gas for the next 28 years.38 See the remarkable digital enhancement of the amateur plane crash site footage.
The Account Has Been Suspended
[doveofo] NESARA Ends Illuminati Bankers; US Airways Flight 1549
Jan 28, 2009 ... Then the three bankers got on the US Airways flight 1549. The European Illuminati bankers have no intention of ever paying out these trading ...
· www.nesara.us/doverpts09/January_28_2009.htm
The Account Has Been Suspended
YouTube - Flight 1549 Plane Crash Hudson River 1-15-2009 NYC
Jan 15, 2009 ... US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320 headed from New York's LaGuardia ... Assassination By Plane Crash Of Top American Bankers Fails In US 1 year ago ... It really had me going. Looks like there having a great time. ... Airbus A320 Flight 1549 Crash Landing in the Hudson River--Part 3 3:56 ...
· Privacy Protection: Transaction Protection: · www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFGHEFyWBv8
Is this what is meant by dumbing down of America???
Hey Dad, why do we save billionaires but not teachers?
EXCERPT:
It’s ironic that the battlefield in this war over resources is public education. Because the public remains entirely uneducated about the connection between those billionaires and school budget cuts. We are clueless about what the Wall Street billionaires do to earn their riches and whether it’s of any value. We might be able to understand “weapons of mass destruction,” but financial weapons of mass destruction are way beyond us.
Deliberate dumbing down of America
EXCERPT:
Let me repeat that: a catalogue of behavior modification programs! We're not talking of programs to teach students anything. We are talking about programs to indoctrinate children passing through the system to believe in values contrary to those on which this nation was based.
Gramm Leach Bliley Act
EXCERPT:
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) signed into law by President Bill Clinton which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".[citation
Sykes report calls for new forum to self regulate financial services in UK
EXCERPT:
Sykes report calls for new 'forum' to self-regulate financial services
By Stephen Foley
Wednesday, 16 June 2004
Stop Socialism
Financial services companies must set up a system of self-regulation, with a "forum" of the great and the good to punish mis-selling, if it is to restore public trust, according to a wide-ranging critique of the industry.
Financial services companies must set up a system of self-regulation, with a "forum" of the great and the good to punish mis-selling, if it is to restore public trust, according to a wide-ranging critique of the industry.
The recommendation was the centrepiece yesterday of a report by Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial College London and the former chairman of GlaxoSmithKline, following a two-year investigation into the savings industry and the City.
Self regulation beats State control
EXCERPT:
Self-regulation beats state control
10/06/04 By: Jemima Kiss
The control and monitoring of illegal content is more effectively controlled by industry self-regulation than by state legislation, according to new research funded by the European Commission.
Issues of self-regulation for web publishers and broadcasters have been explored in a series of reports produced by the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy (PCMLP) project at Oxford University and published on selfregulation.info.
Hey Dad, why do we save billionaires but not teachers?
EXCERPT:
It’s ironic that the battlefield in this war over resources is public education. Because the public remains entirely uneducated about the connection between those billionaires and school budget cuts. We are clueless about what the Wall Street billionaires do to earn their riches and whether it’s of any value. We might be able to understand “weapons of mass destruction,” but financial weapons of mass destruction are way beyond us.
Deliberate dumbing down of America
EXCERPT:
Let me repeat that: a catalogue of behavior modification programs! We're not talking of programs to teach students anything. We are talking about programs to indoctrinate children passing through the system to believe in values contrary to those on which this nation was based.
Gramm Leach Bliley Act
EXCERPT:
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001) signed into law by President Bill Clinton which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the "financial services industry".[citation
Sykes report calls for new forum to self regulate financial services in UK
EXCERPT:
Sykes report calls for new 'forum' to self-regulate financial services
By Stephen Foley
Wednesday, 16 June 2004
Stop Socialism
Financial services companies must set up a system of self-regulation, with a "forum" of the great and the good to punish mis-selling, if it is to restore public trust, according to a wide-ranging critique of the industry.
Financial services companies must set up a system of self-regulation, with a "forum" of the great and the good to punish mis-selling, if it is to restore public trust, according to a wide-ranging critique of the industry.
The recommendation was the centrepiece yesterday of a report by Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial College London and the former chairman of GlaxoSmithKline, following a two-year investigation into the savings industry and the City.
Self regulation beats State control
EXCERPT:
Self-regulation beats state control
10/06/04 By: Jemima Kiss
The control and monitoring of illegal content is more effectively controlled by industry self-regulation than by state legislation, according to new research funded by the European Commission.
Issues of self-regulation for web publishers and broadcasters have been explored in a series of reports produced by the Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy (PCMLP) project at Oxford University and published on selfregulation.info.
Natural born citizen of the United States
The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born Citizens of the United States.
Contents:
1. Constitutional provisions
2. Possible sources
3. De Vattel
4. Legal opinions
5. Legislation and executive branch policy
6. Case law
7. Various other opinions
8. Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned
9. Proposed constitutional amendments
10. See also
11. Notes
12. External links
1. Constitutional provisions
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The term Natural Born Citizen had been used as early as 1777 in a letter from Thomas Jefferson [1] , in his role as correspondent for a committee of the Continental Congress, to American ambassadors in Europe.
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "natural born citizen". It does provide that "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."
2. Possible sources
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "natural born" as "[h]aving a specified position or character by birth." [2] so in English the phrase refers to anyone who is a citizen from birth. There is no record of a debate on the requirements to meet the "natural born Citizen" qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Convention. On June 18, 1787, Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." [3]
Another possible source of the clause is a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. [4]
3. De Vattel
A 1797 English-language edition of the 1758 treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel defined the term "natural born citizens" as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." [5] Earlier English-language editions of this book printed prior to the Convention in 1787, however, lacked the term "natural born citizens, using the term "natives" along with the untranslated French term "Indigenes" instead.
4. Legal opinions
4. 1. 1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote, (Note: this does not mention "Natural Born" in a legal context)
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [6] [italics in original]
However, this opinion pre-dates the Fourteenth amendment, which added to the constitution an explicit description of who shall be citizens, "making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States". [7]
4. 2. 1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color , mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States , is a citizen of the United States, ... . [8] [italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. [9] [italics in original]
5. Legislation and executive branch policy
The requirements for citizenship, and its very definition in American statute law, have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." [10] To date, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has been the only U.S. law explicitly conferring statutory "natural born" citizenship. In 1795, Congress removed the words "natural born" from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." [11]
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. [12] Additionally, under sections 301-309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401-1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth". [13] The phrase "natural born citizen," however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.
The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time. [14] Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons "born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s]." [15]
The definition of the "United States", for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands. [16] Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of "outlying possessions of the United States" (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. "nationality" but not U.S. "citizenship") is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. [17] [18] Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." [19]
The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by 'jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the "United States"? This does not affect citizenship via 'jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship. [20] The State Department also asserts that "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes." [21] This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents.
According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President. [22]
6. Case law
6. 1. Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born citizen", they have occasionally discussed the term as an obiter dictum in cases concerning who is eligible for citizenship at birth.
•Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis):
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
(Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
•Elk v. Wilkins, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a US citizen even though he was born on US soil, because he was born on an Indian Reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. [23]
This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
•Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court discussed the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.
•Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167-68):
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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
•United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen.
The Court stated that:
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' [24]
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations”: [25] "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." [26] The dissenters also noted, arguing that birth on the soil was not sufficient to grant citizenship at birth, that:
it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not. [24]
•Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship mean the same thing and declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."
•Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland.
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.
•Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): Reviews the history of citizenship legislation and of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
2 of 3
Wiki: Natural born citizen of the United States (2/3)
6. 2. Lower court cases addressing natural born citizenship
•Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844): This opinion from a New York court extensively reviewed the issue of natural born citizenship, and was later cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors.
6. 3. Standing in eligibility challenges
Several United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. [27] Alternatively, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress. [28]
Some legal scholars assert that, even if eligibility challenges are nonjusticiable in lower federal courts, and are not undertaken in Congress, there are other avenues for adjudication, such as an action in state court in regard to ballot access. [29]
7. Various other opinions
There is dispute regarding whether the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are natural born citizens. [30] One view interprets the "natural born Citizen" clause as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. [31] [not in citation given] According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship). [30] Another view holds that the clause only requires that a president be a citizen at the time of birth, whether under the Fourteenth Amendment or under federal law. [32]
8. Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned
While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2010) is widely believed either to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or to have been born in the United States, one U.S. President (Chester A. Arthur) and some presidential candidates either were not born or were suspected of not having been born in a U.S. state. [33] In addition, one U.S. Vice President (Albert Gore) was born in Washington, D.C. This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility. [34]
•Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada. [35] [36] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, the attorney in charge of the investigation, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 or 1824, [37] Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 [38] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications. [39] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur's birth, [40] his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis. [41] Arthur's natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.
•The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural born' citizen of the United States." [42] However there is no indication that Long's article was taken seriously or had any impact on the election.
•George Romney (1907-1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers. [43]
•Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state. [35]
•Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general. [44]
•Róger Calero (born 1969) was born in Nicaragua and ran as the Socialist Worker's Party presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. [45]
•John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born of two U.S. citizen parents at the Colón Hospital in Colón, Republic of Panama. [46] The city of Colón was outside the US-administered Panama Canal Zone and remained Panamanian territory throughout the existence of the Canal Zone. [47] [48] [49] [50] The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time, [51] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe published in March 2008 opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency. [52] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen. [53] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403. [54] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth. [55] The US Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship. [56] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen […]". [57] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural born status. [58] [59]
•Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including these challenges to his eligibility. [60] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii, [61] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. [62] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing. [27] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,". [63] On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." [64] The vote passed 378-0. [65]
1 2 3
Wiki: Natural born citizen of the United States (3/3)
9. Proposed constitutional amendments
More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction. [66]
Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible, [67] and the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, to allow eligibility for Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. [66] The Bingham amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents, [67] while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible. [66]
10. See also
•Citizenship
•Citizenship in the United States
•History of citizenship in the United States
•State citizenship
•Nationality
•Native-born citizen
•United States nationality law
11. Notes
1.letter from Thomas Jefferson
2.7 OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 38 (1961)
3.Pryor, Jill A. The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty. 97 Yale Law Journal 881, 889 (1988);
^ Donald H. Dyal; Brian B. Carpenter; Mark A. Thomas (April 1996), Historical dictionary of the Spanish American War, Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. xxvi, ISBN 9780313288524, http://books.google.com/books?id=PvxFKPI6q_oC.
4.Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. Selection, page 123 (Duke University Press 1987) via Google Books.
5.Law of Nations, book 1, chapter 19, paragraph 212. (A 1999 digital edition taken from the 1883 printing of the 1852 edition of Joseph Chitty, translating Vattel's 1758 work from French into English; said in the Preface to have been read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, informing their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787).
6.United States.; Supreme Court, Dred Scott, John F. A. Sanford, Benjamin Chew Howard (1857), A Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in, D. Appleton, pp. 576-582, http://books.google.com/books?id=2LoDAAAAQAAJ.
7.83 U.S. 36
8.Bates, Edward (1862), Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship, Government Printing Office, pp. 26-27, http://books.google.com/books?id=zo5EJE0sorgC.
9.Bates 1862, p. 12, Op. cit.
10."Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 2nd Session". A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. Library of Congress. 1790. http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
11.Statutes At Large, Third Congress, Session II, p. 414.
12.Weiner, Myron. Migration and Refugees, page 252 (Berghahn Books 1998).
13.8 U.S.C. § 1401 , 8 U.S.C. § 1401a , 8 U.S.C. § 1401b , 8 U.S.C. § 1402 , 8 U.S.C. § 1403 , 8 U.S.C. § 1404 , 8 U.S.C. § 1405 , 8 U.S.C. § 1406 , 8 U.S.C. § 1407 , 8 U.S.C. § 1408 , 8 U.S.C. § 1409
14.The ABC’s of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States, Suskind's Immigration Bulletin, Visalaw website, Suskind Susser Bland, Memphis, Tennesse
15."Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_782.html. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
16.See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(36) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) Providing the term “State” and "United States" definitions on the U.S. Federal Code, Inmigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. § 1101a
17."7 FAM 1120 ACQUISITION OF U.S. NATIONALITY IN U.S. TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS" (PDF). U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs. U.S. Department of State. 06-01-05. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf. Retrieved 2008-11-28.
18."PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. United States Congressional Research Service. 2000-04-17. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL30527. Retrieved 2009-12-03.
19."7 FAM 1116.1-4(c) "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality"" (PDF). U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf. Retrieved 2008-02-14.
20."7 FAM 1130 "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent"" (PDF). U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-25.
21.7 FAM 1131.6-2d: "Eligibility for Presidency" (referring to 7 FAM 1131.6-2c).
22."PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. United States Congressional Research Service. 2000-04-17. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf. Retrieved 2010-01-08.
23.Elk, 112 U.S. at 102.
24.^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
25."Vattel, The Law Of Nations, Preface to the 1999 digital edition, by John Roland"
26."The Law Of Nations, 1758, de Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212"
27.^ E.g. see Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008.
28.See 3 U.S.C. ch.1.
29.Tokaji, Daniel. "The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?" Michigan Law Review, First Impressions, Volume 107, page 31 (2008).
30.^ "U.S. Congress moves to clarify the rules: Just how 'American' must a president be?". International Herald Tribune. International Herald Tribune. June 2, 2004. http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
31.Constitutional Topic: Citizenship, U.S. Constitution Online, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html, retrieved 2008-11-25
32.Pryor, p. 885.
33.McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out - New York Times
34.Spiro, Peter. “McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method”, Michigan Law Review, Volume 107, page 208 (2008).
35.^ “Who Can Be President?”, Voice of America News (2008-07-29).
36.It should be noted that his mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, while a native of Berkshire, Vermont, moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future President's father, William Arthur, on 12 April 1821. After the family had settled in Fairfield, Vermont (see below), William Arthur traveled with his eldest daughter to East Stanbridge (Canada) in October 1830 and commuted to Fairfield on Sundays to preach. "It appears that he traveled regularly between the two villages, both of which were close to the Canadian border, for about eighteen months, holding two jobs" (cf. Thomas C. Reeves, "The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur's Birthplace", Vermont History 38, Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, p. 295), which may well explain the confusion about Arthur's place of birth, as perhaps did the fact that he was born in Franklin County, and thus literally within a day's walk of the Vermont-Quebec border (cf. William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents, Random House: 1993, pp. 307-08, ISBN 0517082446).
37.Regina, the first child of William and Malvina Arthur, was still born in Dunham, Quebec, on 8 March 1822. Their second child Jane was born 14 March 1824 in Burlington, Vermont, where the family had taken up residence. Thereafter the family relocated several times in Vermont, to Jericho (1825), Waterville (1827), and finally Fairfield (May 1828), where Chester A. Arthur was later born; cf. Thomas C. Reeves, "The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur's Birthplace", Vermont History 38, Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, pp. 294-5.
38.Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss. The Life and Times of Chester Alan Arthur, Newtown 1991, p. 5.
39.E.g. in an early biography of Presidents Garfield and Arthur; Doyle, Burton T.; Swaney, Homer H. (1881). Lives of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. Washington: R.H. Darby. p. 183. ISBN 0-104-57546-8. http://www.archive.org/stream/livesofjamesa00doyle/livesofjamesa00doyle_djvu.txt.
40.Date of William Arthur's naturalization: August 31, 1843; cf. Certificate of Naturalization, The Chester Arthur Papers, Library of Congress, Washington.
41.Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time of Arthur's birth in 1829 and would not achieve independence as a nation for almost 100 years after that. The father's British citizenship was conferred via jus sanguinis, independent of the place of birth; cf. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England I.10 ("Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives"), Oxford 1765-1769: […] all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; […]. British common law with regard to patrilineal jus sanguinis and natural-born subjects of foreign birth was later codified in the British National and Status of Aliens Act of 1914.
42.Breckinridge Long (1916), "Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a 'Natural Born Citizen' within the Meaning of the Constitution?", Chicago Legal News 146, p. 220.
43.D. Fitzgerald, "Nationality and Migration in Modern Mexico", in: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2005, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 171-191
44.Weicker, An Outcast, Runs Again, New York Times, April 13, 1988
45.The Green Papers: 2008 Election details about the Calero Presidential Campaign
46.Birth Certificate of John McCain, Certification Document, and Affidavit of authenticity as filed with the US District Court in New Hampshire in the case of Hollander v. McCain: [1] Source: Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law website: [2].
47.Colón Hospital, Colón, Republic of Panama (cf. Senator McCains JohnMcCain: Birth Certificate (long and short form), Colon, Panama, 1936, scribd.com.
48.Article II of the Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama states: "...the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant."
49.A book written by the US Navy includes the same reference: Link to relevant page in the book via Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=pxooAAAAYAAJ&dq=panama%20canal%20colon&lr=&pg=PA192
50.This map clearly shows that Colon is not part of the Canal Zone. Colon Hospital can be seen on the map at the North end of the island. http://www.serve.com/CZBrats/Maps/CZaColon.jpg (Source: http://www.serve.com/~CZBrats/)
51.US Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM §1116.1-4: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
52."Lawyers Conclude McCain Is "Natural Born", Associated Press via CBS News (2008-03-28). Retrieved 2008-05-23.
53.S.Res.511: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen; sponsors: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. Barack Obama et al.; page S2951 notes Chairman Patrick Leahy as agreeing to Secretary Michael Chertoff's "assumption and understanding" that a citizen is a natural born citizen, if he or she was "born of American parents".
54.Cf. William Alsup, Robinson v. Bowen: Order denying preliminary injunction and dismissing action, September 16, 2008, p. 2; Alsup ruled that McCain was either a natural born citizen by birth under 8 U.S.C. §1401c or retroactively under 8 U.S.C. §1403(a). (See also: "Judge says McCain is a 'natural born citizen'". Associated Press. September 18, 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-09-17-1518396547_x.htm. Retrieved November 16, 2008., and Constitutional Topic: Citizenship, U.S. Constitution Online, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html, retrieved 2008-11-25.)
55.Gabriel J. Chin, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship", in: Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008 (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14)
56."Nationality" in: 7 FAM 1111.3 (c).
57.7 FAM §1131.6-2, Eligibility for Presidency.
58.SCOTUS 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971)
59.Constitutional Topic: Citizenship, U.S. Constitution Online, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html, retrieved 2009-06-07
60."The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate (archived web cache)". Fight the Smears (Obama for America). http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud. (retrieved: 2009-07-11), quoting in excerpts from: "Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?". FactCheck.org (Annenberg Foundation). 2008-08-29. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html.; see also: "Obama hits back at Internet slanders". Agence France-Press. 2008-06-12. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5juMJpMhCS5TDzEF2Ds-frHSuHQLQ.; in a written oath to the State of Arizona Obama further stated that he is a natural born citizen (cf. Candidate Nomination Paper, State of Arizona, November 30, 2007).
61.Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells (SCOTUS 08A407) and Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz (SCOTUS 08A469); in a conference decision the Supreme Court denied their applications without comment.
62."The truth about Barack's birth certificate (archived web cache)", Obama for America. Retrieved 2009-07-25).
63."Hawaii reasserts Obama ‘natural-born’ citizen, MSNBC, July 28, 2990.
64.Text of H. Res. 593: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the..., govtrack.us
65.House Vote On Passage: H. Res. 593: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the..., govtrack.us
66.^ Kasindorf, Martin (2004-12-02). "Should the Constitution be amended for Arnold?". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-12-02-schwarzenegger-amendment_x.htm.
67.^ "President Kissinger?". Time. 1974-03-04. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944757,00.html.
12. External links
•John Yinger, Essay on the Presidential Eligibility clause and on the origins and interpretation of natural born citizen.
•Jill A. Pryor, "The Natural Born Citizen Clause and the Presidential Eligibility Clause; Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 97, 1988, pp. 881-899.
•Sarah P. Herlihy, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle", Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 81, 2006, pp. 275-300.
• [[|d]] •
United States Constitution
Text Preamble and Articles · Bill of Rights · Subsequent Amendments
Articles Preamble · One · Two · Three · Four · Five · Six · Seven
Amendments
Bill of Rights
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10
11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27
Ratified · Proposed · Unsuccessful · Conventions to propose · State ratifying conventions
Formation History · Articles of Confederation · Mount Vernon Conference · Annapolis Convention · Philadelphia Convention (Virginia Plan · New Jersey Plan · Connecticut Compromise · Three-Fifths Compromise · Signers) · Federalist Papers (list) · Massachusetts Compromise
Clauses Appointments · Appropriations · Case or Controversy · Citizenship · Commerce · Compact · Confrontation · Contract · Copyright and Patent · Due Process · Emolument · Equal Protection · Establishment · Exceptions · Ex post facto · Extradition · Free Exercise · Fugitive Slave · Full Faith and Credit · General Welfare · Guarantee · Impeachment · Ineligibility · Militia · Natural-born citizen · Necessary and Proper · No Religious Test · Origination · Postal · Presentment · Privileges and Immunities · Privileges or Immunities · Speech or Debate · Supremacy · Suspension · Takings · Taxing and Spending · Territorial · Title of Nobility · Treaty · Trial by Jury · Vesting · War Powers
Interpretation Theory · Concurrent powers · Congressional enforcement · Double jeopardy · Dormant Commerce Clause · Enumerated powers · Executive privilege · Incorporation of the Bill of Rights · Nondelegation doctrine · Preemption · Saxbe fix · Separation of church and state · Separation of powers · Unitary executive theory
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with unsourced statements from June 2009, Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2010, All articles containing potentially dated statements, United States Constitution, United States law, Immigration to the United States, United States nationality law
The article "Natural born citizen of the United States" is part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
•"Natural born citizen of the United States" on the Wikipedia website
•Page history
•Discussion
•Edit this page
The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born Citizens of the United States.
Contents:
1. Constitutional provisions
2. Possible sources
3. De Vattel
4. Legal opinions
5. Legislation and executive branch policy
6. Case law
7. Various other opinions
8. Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned
9. Proposed constitutional amendments
10. See also
11. Notes
12. External links
1. Constitutional provisions
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
“ No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ”
The grandfather provision of the "natural born Citizen" clause provided an exception to the "natural born" requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The term Natural Born Citizen had been used as early as 1777 in a letter from Thomas Jefferson [1] , in his role as correspondent for a committee of the Continental Congress, to American ambassadors in Europe.
Additionally, the Twelfth Amendment states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase "natural born citizen". It does provide that "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."
2. Possible sources
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "natural born" as "[h]aving a specified position or character by birth." [2] so in English the phrase refers to anyone who is a citizen from birth. There is no record of a debate on the requirements to meet the "natural born Citizen" qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Convention. On June 18, 1787, Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government. Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." [3]
Another possible source of the clause is a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. [4]
3. De Vattel
A 1797 English-language edition of the 1758 treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel defined the term "natural born citizens" as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." [5] Earlier English-language editions of this book printed prior to the Convention in 1787, however, lacked the term "natural born citizens, using the term "natives" along with the untranslated French term "Indigenes" instead.
4. Legal opinions
4. 1. 1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote, (Note: this does not mention "Natural Born" in a legal context)
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [6] [italics in original]
However, this opinion pre-dates the Fourteenth amendment, which added to the constitution an explicit description of who shall be citizens, "making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States". [7]
4. 2. 1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color , mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States , is a citizen of the United States, ... . [8] [italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic. [9] [italics in original]
5. Legislation and executive branch policy
The requirements for citizenship, and its very definition in American statute law, have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." [10] To date, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has been the only U.S. law explicitly conferring statutory "natural born" citizenship. In 1795, Congress removed the words "natural born" from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." [11]
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. [12] Additionally, under sections 301-309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (restated in sections 1401-1409 of Title 8 of the United States Code), current U.S. law defines numerous other categories of individuals born abroad, as well as people born in most U.S. territories and possessions, as being "nationals and citizens of the United States at birth". [13] The phrase "natural born citizen," however, does not appear in the current statutes dealing with citizenship at birth.
The law governing the citizenship of children born outside the U.S. to one or two U.S.-citizen parents has varied considerably over time. [14] Current U.S. statutes define various categories of individuals born overseas as "citizens at birth," including (for example) all persons "born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person[s]." [15]
The definition of the "United States", for nationality purposes, was expanded in 1952 to add Guam, and in 1986 it was expanded again to include the Northern Mariana Islands. [16] Persons born in these territories (in addition to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) currently acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The category of "outlying possessions of the United States" (whose inhabitants generally have U.S. "nationality" but not U.S. "citizenship") is now restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. [17] [18] Regarding people born at U.S. military bases in foreign countries, current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads:
"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth." [19]
The foregoing section of the FAM only addresses citizenship by 'jus soli: In short, what is the geographic scope of the "United States"? This does not affect citizenship via 'jus sanguinis, i.e. those who are born abroad to U.S. citizens and who otherwise meet the qualifications for statutory citizenship. [20] The State Department also asserts that "the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes." [21] This position seems to be at odds with the fact that Congress in 1790 felt it could confer natural born citizenship on those born abroad to American parents.
According to an April 2000 report by the Congressional Research Service, most constitutional scholars interpret Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President. [22]
6. Case law
6. 1. Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically determined the meaning of "natural born citizen", they have occasionally discussed the term as an obiter dictum in cases concerning who is eligible for citizenship at birth.
•Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the "natural born citizen" clause, the dissent states that such citizenship is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis):
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.
(Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
•Elk v. Wilkins, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court denied Elk, a Native American, the right to vote as a US citizen even though he was born on US soil, because he was born on an Indian Reservation. Elk was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth.
The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. [23]
This ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
•Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court discussed the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.
•Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): In this case decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated (pp. 167-68):
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. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
•United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen.
The Court stated that:
The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' [24]
Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:
The court ruled:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
The dissent argued that the meaning of the “subject to the jurisdiction” language found in 14th Amendment was the same as that found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” On the meaning of “natural born citizen,” the dissent also cited the treatise on international law by Emerich de Vattel entitled “The Law of Nations”: [25] "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." [26] The dissenters also noted, arguing that birth on the soil was not sufficient to grant citizenship at birth, that:
it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not. [24]
•Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that birthright citizenship and natural born citizenship mean the same thing and declared Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States."
•Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland.
We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.
•Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971): Reviews the history of citizenship legislation and of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
2 of 3
Wiki: Natural born citizen of the United States (2/3)
6. 2. Lower court cases addressing natural born citizenship
•Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844): This opinion from a New York court extensively reviewed the issue of natural born citizenship, and was later cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.
And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.
Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors.
6. 3. Standing in eligibility challenges
Several United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. [27] Alternatively, there is a statutory method by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress. [28]
Some legal scholars assert that, even if eligibility challenges are nonjusticiable in lower federal courts, and are not undertaken in Congress, there are other avenues for adjudication, such as an action in state court in regard to ballot access. [29]
7. Various other opinions
There is dispute regarding whether the foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are natural born citizens. [30] One view interprets the "natural born Citizen" clause as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. [31] [not in citation given] According to this view, in order to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States, or possibly an incorporated territory; otherwise, they are a citizen "by law" and are therefore a "statutory citizen," (not necessarily, however, a naturalized citizen, which implies a pre-existing foreign citizenship). [30] Another view holds that the clause only requires that a president be a citizen at the time of birth, whether under the Fourteenth Amendment or under federal law. [32]
8. Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned
While every President and Vice President to date (as of 2010) is widely believed either to have been a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or to have been born in the United States, one U.S. President (Chester A. Arthur) and some presidential candidates either were not born or were suspected of not having been born in a U.S. state. [33] In addition, one U.S. Vice President (Albert Gore) was born in Washington, D.C. This does not necessarily mean that they were ineligible, only that there was some controversy (usually minor) about their eligibility, which may have been resolved in favor of eligibility. [34]
•Chester A. Arthur (1829-1886), 21st president of the United States, was rumored to have been born in Canada. [35] [36] This was never demonstrated by his Democratic opponents, although Arthur Hinman, the attorney in charge of the investigation, raised the objection during his vice-presidential campaign and after the end of his Presidency. Arthur was born in Vermont to a U.S. citizen mother and a father from Ireland, who was eventually naturalized as a U.S. citizen. Despite the fact that his parents took up residence in the United States somewhere between 1822 or 1824, [37] Chester Arthur additionally began to claim between 1870 and 1880 [38] that he had been born in 1830, rather than in 1829, which only caused minor confusion and was even used in several publications. [39] Arthur was sworn in as president when President Garfield died after being shot. Since his Irish father William was naturalized 14 years after Chester Arthur's birth, [40] his citizenship status at birth is unclear, because he was born before the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment, which provided that any person born on United States territory and being subject to the jurisdiction thereof was considered a born U.S. citizen, and because he also held British citizenship at birth by patrilineal jus sanguinis. [41] Arthur's natural born citizenship status is therefore equally unclear.
•The eligibility of Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) was questioned in an article written by Breckinridge Long, and published in the Chicago Legal News during the U.S. presidential election of 1916, in which Hughes was narrowly defeated by Woodrow Wilson. Long claimed that Hughes was ineligible because his father had not yet naturalized at the time of his birth and was still a British citizen. Observing that Hughes, although born in the United States, was also a British subject and therefore "enjoy[ed] a dual nationality and owe[d] a double allegiance", Long argued that a native born citizen was not natural born without a unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance and stated: "Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural born' citizen of the United States." [42] However there is no indication that Long's article was taken seriously or had any impact on the election.
•George Romney (1907-1995), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 1968, was born in Mexico to U.S. parents. Romney’s grandfather had emigrated to Mexico in 1886 with his three wives and children after Utah outlawed polygamy. Romney's monogamous parents retained their U.S. citizenship and returned to the United States with him in 1912. Romney never received Mexican citizenship, because the country's nationality laws had been restricted to jus-sanguinis statutes due to prevailing politics aimed against American settlers. [43]
•Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) was born in Phoenix, in what was then the incorporated Arizona Territory of the United States. During his presidential campaign in 1964, there was a minor controversy over Goldwater's having been born in Arizona when it was not yet a state. [35]
•Lowell Weicker (born 1931), the former Connecticut Senator, Representative, and Governor, entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980 but dropped out before voting in the primaries began. He was born in Paris, France to parents who were U.S. citizens. His father was an executive for E. R. Squibb & Sons and his mother was the Indian-born daughter of a British general. [44]
•Róger Calero (born 1969) was born in Nicaragua and ran as the Socialist Worker's Party presidential candidate in 2004 and 2008. In 2008, Calero appeared on the ballot in Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. [45]
•John McCain (born 1936), who ran for the Republican party nomination in 2000 and was the Republican nominee in 2008, was born of two U.S. citizen parents at the Colón Hospital in Colón, Republic of Panama. [46] The city of Colón was outside the US-administered Panama Canal Zone and remained Panamanian territory throughout the existence of the Canal Zone. [47] [48] [49] [50] The former unincorporated territory of the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory at the time, [51] but 8 U.S.C. § 1403, which became law in 1937, retroactively conferred citizenship on individuals born within the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and on individuals born in the Republic of Panama on or after that date who had at least one U.S. citizen parent employed by the U.S. government or the Panama Railway Company; 8 U.S.C. § 1403 was cited in Judge Alsup's 2008 ruling, described below. A paper by former Solicitor General Ted Olson and Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe published in March 2008 opined that McCain was eligible for the Presidency. [52] In April 2008 the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural born citizen. [53] In September 2008 U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403. [54] These views have been criticized by Gabriel J. Chin, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, who argues that McCain was at birth a citizen of Panama and was only retroactively declared a born citizen under 8 U.S.C. § 1403, because at the time of his birth and with regard to the Canal Zone the Supreme Court's Insular Cases overruled the Naturalization Act of 1795, which would otherwise have declared McCain a U.S. citizen immediately at birth. [55] The US Foreign Affairs Manual states that children born in the Panama Canal Zone at certain times became U.S. nationals without citizenship. [56] It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen […]". [57] In Rogers v. Bellei the Supreme Court only ruled that "children born abroad of Americans are not citizens within the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment", and didn't elaborate on the natural born status. [58] [59]
•Barack Obama (born 1961), 44th president of the United States, was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a British subject father from what was then the Kenya Colony of the United Kingdom (which became the independent country of Kenya in 1963). Before and after the 2008 presidential election, arguments were made that he is not a natural born citizen. On June 12, 2008, the Obama presidential campaign launched a website to counter what it described as smears by his opponents, including these challenges to his eligibility. [60] The most prominent issue raised against Obama was the claim made in several lawsuits that he was not actually born in Hawaii. In two other lawsuits, the plaintiffs argued that it was irrelevant whether he was born in Hawaii, [61] but argued instead that he was nevertheless not a natural born citizen because his citizenship status at birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. [62] The relevant courts have either denied all applications or declined to render a judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Some of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing. [27] On July 28, 2009, Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a statement saying, "I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,". [63] On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, "Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961." [64] The vote passed 378-0. [65]
1 2 3
Wiki: Natural born citizen of the United States (3/3)
9. Proposed constitutional amendments
More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction. [66]
Two of the more well known were introduced by Representative Jonathan Bingham in 1974, to allow for Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible, [67] and the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003, to allow eligibility for Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. [66] The Bingham amendment would have also made clear the eligibility of those born abroad to U.S. parents, [67] while the Hatch one would have allowed those who have been naturalized citizens for twenty years to be eligible. [66]
10. See also
•Citizenship
•Citizenship in the United States
•History of citizenship in the United States
•State citizenship
•Nationality
•Native-born citizen
•United States nationality law
11. Notes
1.letter from Thomas Jefferson
2.7 OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 38 (1961)
3.Pryor, Jill A. The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty. 97 Yale Law Journal 881, 889 (1988);
^ Donald H. Dyal; Brian B. Carpenter; Mark A. Thomas (April 1996), Historical dictionary of the Spanish American War, Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. xxvi, ISBN 9780313288524, http://books.google.com/books?id=PvxFKPI6q_oC.
4.Heard, Alexander and Nelson, Michael. Selection, page 123 (Duke University Press 1987) via Google Books.
5.Law of Nations, book 1, chapter 19, paragraph 212. (A 1999 digital edition taken from the 1883 printing of the 1852 edition of Joseph Chitty, translating Vattel's 1758 work from French into English; said in the Preface to have been read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, informing their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787).
6.United States.; Supreme Court, Dred Scott, John F. A. Sanford, Benjamin Chew Howard (1857), A Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in, D. Appleton, pp. 576-582, http://books.google.com/books?id=2LoDAAAAQAAJ.
7.83 U.S. 36
8.Bates, Edward (1862), Opinion of Attorney General Bates on Citizenship, Government Printing Office, pp. 26-27, http://books.google.com/books?id=zo5EJE0sorgC.
9.Bates 1862, p. 12, Op. cit.
10."Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 2nd Session". A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875. Library of Congress. 1790. http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226. Retrieved 2006-11-10.
11.Statutes At Large, Third Congress, Session II, p. 414.
12.Weiner, Myron. Migration and Refugees, page 252 (Berghahn Books 1998).
13.8 U.S.C. § 1401 , 8 U.S.C. § 1401a , 8 U.S.C. § 1401b , 8 U.S.C. § 1402 , 8 U.S.C. § 1403 , 8 U.S.C. § 1404 , 8 U.S.C. § 1405 , 8 U.S.C. § 1406 , 8 U.S.C. § 1407 , 8 U.S.C. § 1408 , 8 U.S.C. § 1409
14.The ABC’s of Immigration: Citizenship Rules for People Born Outside the United States, Suskind's Immigration Bulletin, Visalaw website, Suskind Susser Bland, Memphis, Tennesse
15."Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_782.html. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
16.See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(36) and 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38) Providing the term “State” and "United States" definitions on the U.S. Federal Code, Inmigration and Nationality Act 8 U.S.C. § 1101a
17."7 FAM 1120 ACQUISITION OF U.S. NATIONALITY IN U.S. TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS" (PDF). U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs. U.S. Department of State. 06-01-05. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf. Retrieved 2008-11-28.
18."PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. United States Congressional Research Service. 2000-04-17. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL30527. Retrieved 2009-12-03.
19."7 FAM 1116.1-4(c) "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality"" (PDF). U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf. Retrieved 2008-02-14.
20."7 FAM 1130 "Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by Birth Abroad to U.S. Citizen Parent"" (PDF). U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf. Retrieved 2008-04-25.
21.7 FAM 1131.6-2d: "Eligibility for Presidency" (referring to 7 FAM 1131.6-2c).
22."PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES: A PRIMER" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. United States Congressional Research Service. 2000-04-17. http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30527.pdf. Retrieved 2010-01-08.
23.Elk, 112 U.S. at 102.
24.^ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
25."Vattel, The Law Of Nations, Preface to the 1999 digital edition, by John Roland"
26."The Law Of Nations, 1758, de Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212"
27.^ E.g. see Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 08-04083 (E.D. Pa. 2008.
28.See 3 U.S.C. ch.1.
29.Tokaji, Daniel. "The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President?" Michigan Law Review, First Impressions, Volume 107, page 31 (2008).
30.^ "U.S. Congress moves to clarify the rules: Just how 'American' must a president be?". International Herald Tribune. International Herald Tribune. June 2, 2004. http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/06/02/expats_ed3_.php. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
31.Constitutional Topic: Citizenship, U.S. Constitution Online, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html, retrieved 2008-11-25
32.Pryor, p. 885.
33.McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out - New York Times
34.Spiro, Peter. “McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method”, Michigan Law Review, Volume 107, page 208 (2008).
35.^ “Who Can Be President?”, Voice of America News (2008-07-29).
36.It should be noted that his mother, Malvina Stone Arthur, while a native of Berkshire, Vermont, moved with her family to Quebec, where she met and married the future President's father, William Arthur, on 12 April 1821. After the family had settled in Fairfield, Vermont (see below), William Arthur traveled with his eldest daughter to East Stanbridge (Canada) in October 1830 and commuted to Fairfield on Sundays to preach. "It appears that he traveled regularly between the two villages, both of which were close to the Canadian border, for about eighteen months, holding two jobs" (cf. Thomas C. Reeves, "The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur's Birthplace", Vermont History 38, Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, p. 295), which may well explain the confusion about Arthur's place of birth, as perhaps did the fact that he was born in Franklin County, and thus literally within a day's walk of the Vermont-Quebec border (cf. William A. DeGregorio, The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents, Random House: 1993, pp. 307-08, ISBN 0517082446).
37.Regina, the first child of William and Malvina Arthur, was still born in Dunham, Quebec, on 8 March 1822. Their second child Jane was born 14 March 1824 in Burlington, Vermont, where the family had taken up residence. Thereafter the family relocated several times in Vermont, to Jericho (1825), Waterville (1827), and finally Fairfield (May 1828), where Chester A. Arthur was later born; cf. Thomas C. Reeves, "The Mystery of Chester Alan Arthur's Birthplace", Vermont History 38, Montpelier: Vermont Historical Society, pp. 294-5.
38.Thomas C. Reeves, Gentleman Boss. The Life and Times of Chester Alan Arthur, Newtown 1991, p. 5.
39.E.g. in an early biography of Presidents Garfield and Arthur; Doyle, Burton T.; Swaney, Homer H. (1881). Lives of James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur. Washington: R.H. Darby. p. 183. ISBN 0-104-57546-8. http://www.archive.org/stream/livesofjamesa00doyle/livesofjamesa00doyle_djvu.txt.
40.Date of William Arthur's naturalization: August 31, 1843; cf. Certificate of Naturalization, The Chester Arthur Papers, Library of Congress, Washington.
41.Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time of Arthur's birth in 1829 and would not achieve independence as a nation for almost 100 years after that. The father's British citizenship was conferred via jus sanguinis, independent of the place of birth; cf. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England I.10 ("Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives"), Oxford 1765-1769: […] all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; […]. British common law with regard to patrilineal jus sanguinis and natural-born subjects of foreign birth was later codified in the British National and Status of Aliens Act of 1914.
42.Breckinridge Long (1916), "Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a 'Natural Born Citizen' within the Meaning of the Constitution?", Chicago Legal News 146, p. 220.
43.D. Fitzgerald, "Nationality and Migration in Modern Mexico", in: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2005, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 171-191
44.Weicker, An Outcast, Runs Again, New York Times, April 13, 1988
45.The Green Papers: 2008 Election details about the Calero Presidential Campaign
46.Birth Certificate of John McCain, Certification Document, and Affidavit of authenticity as filed with the US District Court in New Hampshire in the case of Hollander v. McCain: [1] Source: Ohio State University, Michael E. Moritz College of Law website: [2].
47.Colón Hospital, Colón, Republic of Panama (cf. Senator McCains JohnMcCain: Birth Certificate (long and short form), Colon, Panama, 1936, scribd.com.
48.Article II of the Convention Between the United States and the Republic of Panama states: "...the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant."
49.A book written by the US Navy includes the same reference: Link to relevant page in the book via Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=pxooAAAAYAAJ&dq=panama%20canal%20colon&lr=&pg=PA192
50.This map clearly shows that Colon is not part of the Canal Zone. Colon Hospital can be seen on the map at the North end of the island. http://www.serve.com/CZBrats/Maps/CZaColon.jpg (Source: http://www.serve.com/~CZBrats/)
51.US Foreign Affairs Manual, 7 FAM §1116.1-4: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."
52."Lawyers Conclude McCain Is "Natural Born", Associated Press via CBS News (2008-03-28). Retrieved 2008-05-23.
53.S.Res.511: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen; sponsors: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Sen. Barack Obama et al.; page S2951 notes Chairman Patrick Leahy as agreeing to Secretary Michael Chertoff's "assumption and understanding" that a citizen is a natural born citizen, if he or she was "born of American parents".
54.Cf. William Alsup, Robinson v. Bowen: Order denying preliminary injunction and dismissing action, September 16, 2008, p. 2; Alsup ruled that McCain was either a natural born citizen by birth under 8 U.S.C. §1401c or retroactively under 8 U.S.C. §1403(a). (See also: "Judge says McCain is a 'natural born citizen'". Associated Press. September 18, 2008. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-09-17-1518396547_x.htm. Retrieved November 16, 2008., and Constitutional Topic: Citizenship, U.S. Constitution Online, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html, retrieved 2008-11-25.)
55.Gabriel J. Chin, "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship", in: Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008 (Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14)
56."Nationality" in: 7 FAM 1111.3 (c).
57.7 FAM §1131.6-2, Eligibility for Presidency.
58.SCOTUS 401 U.S. 815, 828 (1971)
59.Constitutional Topic: Citizenship, U.S. Constitution Online, http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html, retrieved 2009-06-07
60."The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate (archived web cache)". Fight the Smears (Obama for America). http://www.webcitation.org/5iGGBysud. (retrieved: 2009-07-11), quoting in excerpts from: "Does Barack Obama have Kenyan citizenship?". FactCheck.org (Annenberg Foundation). 2008-08-29. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html.; see also: "Obama hits back at Internet slanders". Agence France-Press. 2008-06-12. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5juMJpMhCS5TDzEF2Ds-frHSuHQLQ.; in a written oath to the State of Arizona Obama further stated that he is a natural born citizen (cf. Candidate Nomination Paper, State of Arizona, November 30, 2007).
61.Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells (SCOTUS 08A407) and Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz (SCOTUS 08A469); in a conference decision the Supreme Court denied their applications without comment.
62."The truth about Barack's birth certificate (archived web cache)", Obama for America. Retrieved 2009-07-25).
63."Hawaii reasserts Obama ‘natural-born’ citizen, MSNBC, July 28, 2990.
64.Text of H. Res. 593: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the..., govtrack.us
65.House Vote On Passage: H. Res. 593: Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the..., govtrack.us
66.^ Kasindorf, Martin (2004-12-02). "Should the Constitution be amended for Arnold?". USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-12-02-schwarzenegger-amendment_x.htm.
67.^ "President Kissinger?". Time. 1974-03-04. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944757,00.html.
12. External links
•John Yinger, Essay on the Presidential Eligibility clause and on the origins and interpretation of natural born citizen.
•Jill A. Pryor, "The Natural Born Citizen Clause and the Presidential Eligibility Clause; Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty", Yale Law Journal, Vol. 97, 1988, pp. 881-899.
•Sarah P. Herlihy, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle", Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 81, 2006, pp. 275-300.
• [[|d]] •
United States Constitution
Text Preamble and Articles · Bill of Rights · Subsequent Amendments
Articles Preamble · One · Two · Three · Four · Five · Six · Seven
Amendments
Bill of Rights
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10
11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27
Ratified · Proposed · Unsuccessful · Conventions to propose · State ratifying conventions
Formation History · Articles of Confederation · Mount Vernon Conference · Annapolis Convention · Philadelphia Convention (Virginia Plan · New Jersey Plan · Connecticut Compromise · Three-Fifths Compromise · Signers) · Federalist Papers (list) · Massachusetts Compromise
Clauses Appointments · Appropriations · Case or Controversy · Citizenship · Commerce · Compact · Confrontation · Contract · Copyright and Patent · Due Process · Emolument · Equal Protection · Establishment · Exceptions · Ex post facto · Extradition · Free Exercise · Fugitive Slave · Full Faith and Credit · General Welfare · Guarantee · Impeachment · Ineligibility · Militia · Natural-born citizen · Necessary and Proper · No Religious Test · Origination · Postal · Presentment · Privileges and Immunities · Privileges or Immunities · Speech or Debate · Supremacy · Suspension · Takings · Taxing and Spending · Territorial · Title of Nobility · Treaty · Trial by Jury · Vesting · War Powers
Interpretation Theory · Concurrent powers · Congressional enforcement · Double jeopardy · Dormant Commerce Clause · Enumerated powers · Executive privilege · Incorporation of the Bill of Rights · Nondelegation doctrine · Preemption · Saxbe fix · Separation of church and state · Separation of powers · Unitary executive theory
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements, Articles with unsourced statements from June 2009, Articles containing potentially dated statements from 2010, All articles containing potentially dated statements, United States Constitution, United States law, Immigration to the United States, United States nationality law
The article "Natural born citizen of the United States" is part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. It is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
•"Natural born citizen of the United States" on the Wikipedia website
•Page history
•Discussion
•Edit this page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)