Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,211
- 16,848
- 2,250
Wong Kim Ark was never affirmed a Article 2 natural born Citizen.While Professor Titus believes that a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents, he also understands that the current Supreme Court precedent on what is a natural born citizen is the case of Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649. Under that precedent President Obama, Governor Jindal and Senator Rubio are natural born citizens. The question of Senator Cruz's status would be open to debate.
Professor Tutus in an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in Rudy v. Lee said that in effect the decision on the meaning of the term natural born citizen comes down to a choice between Justice Gray's majority opinion and Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark.
Damn straight he does.
However, 23 years later, this Court appeared to
elevate this second view, asserting that citizenship
acquired by birth was governed by the English
common law rule that citizenship at birth was defined
by place of birth, except in those cases where the
parents owed an official allegiance to a foreign
government. See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, at 655
(1898). In a cogent dissent, Chief Justice Fuller
refuted the claim that the English common law of
citizenry by place of birth applied in the United States,
given its origin in “feudalism between the individual
and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due
was that of liegemen to their liege lord.” Id. at 707
(Fuller, C.J., dissenting). In the English monarchical
rule’s stead, the Chief Justice drew on the
international law of nations which held that “natives,
or natural-born citizens, are those born ... [of] parents
who are citizens.” Id. at 708.
Whatever the merits of the two views of citizenship
by birth, Wong Kim Ark settles the question of its
justiciability. Without hesitation, Justice Gray
addressed the merits of the claim of a Chinese man —
born in America to a father and mother, both of whom
were Chinese citizens, although domiciled in the
United States — that he was a citizen by birth, not
subject to the Chinese exclusion laws. Beginning with
an exposition of the English common law, Justice Gray
surveyed the cases and legal treatises addressing the
subject. Id. at 655-58. He then reviewed early
American authorities which, he concluded, supported
the view that America’s judges, federal and state, had
applied the English rule. Id. at 658-66. Thus, Justice
Gray concluded:
there are none that can constrain or permit the
judiciary to refuse to give full effect to the
peremptory and explicit language of the
fourteenth Amendment, which declares and
ordains that “All persons born or naturalized in
the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States.” [Id.
at 694.]
Equally thorough, Chief Justice Fuller began his
analysis citing the international legal authority, de
Vattel, extensively surveying domestic legal
authorities to support the view that a natural born
citizen was defined by the parents to whom a person
was born, not by the place of birth. See id. at 708-29.
Thus, the Chief Justice concluded:
citizenship of the United States ... differed from
the English common law rule in vital
particulars, and, among others, in that it did not
recognize allegiance as indelible, and in that it
did recognize an essential difference between
birth during temporary, and birth during
permanent, residence. [Id. at 729 (Fuller, C.J.
dissenting).4
]
C. It Is Imperative That This Court Recognize
That the Question, Whether a President Is
a Natural Born Citizen, Is Justiciable.
It is not necessary at this point to decide whether
President Obama is a natural born citizen. Nor is it
necessary now to endorse Justice Gray’s views over
those of dissenting Chief Justice Fuller, or vice versa.
Indeed, Mr. Rudy’s case against President Obama’s
citizenship is based upon both views — that he is not
a natural born citizen based either on his place of
birth, or on the citizenship of his parents.
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Rudy v Lee USJF Amicus Brief.pdf
As a matter of law, the findings of the majority are authoritative. The dissent isn't. And Titus recognizes that his point of view aligns with the dissenting view.