Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)/Archive 3

The Insular Cases
Any thoughts on including discussion of the Insular Cases in this "natural born citizen" article? From what I've read about these cases, my understanding is that in these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution applies only in the United States, and since territories are not states, people born and/or living in a territory have no constitutional protections. That would seem to imply that people born in territories are not granted citizenship by birth by the Constitution. This of course goes to John McCain's qualifications. he was born in the Panama Canal zone, a territory, not a state, to military parents. It is my understanding that the Insular cases are the reason Congress passed laws giving citizenship to people like McCain, people born overseas to active duty military, and to people born in territories such as Puerto Rico, Panama Canal Zone, Guam, etc. So, are such people citizens by Law, or citizens by Birth? Not gonna answer this question - I just feel it needs to be raised.

Alienburrito (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)alienburrito

Only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Rico like the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause), that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner with regard to basic civil rights. The clause also embraces a right to travel, so that a citizen of one state can go and enjoy privileges and immunities in any other state; this clause apply to Puerto Rico due to federal law. .

The U.S. Congress expressly extended the U.S. Constitution clause to Puerto Rico through U.S. Law in 1947.

Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.

In a brief concurrence in the judgment of Torres v. Puerto Rico, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, argued that any implicit limits from the Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s.

Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unanimously that Federal Courts have the power to enforce extraditions based on the Extradition Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution.

Puerto Rico v. Shell Co. (P. R.), Ltd. 302 U.S. 253 (1937) was a notable Supreme Court of the United States case. The issue was whether a local ("insular") law could be pre-empted by the Commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

The Natural Born U.S. Citizen status was expressly extended through.


 * (interruption) clarified by Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC) You are mistaken.  says nothing about 'Natural Born'. It does say such persons are citizens at birth but it does not in any way claim to confer natural born status on such persons.HMTKSteve (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Natural born citizenship" is not a status. All US citizens have the same rights. There is no difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen. Natural birth is simply a path to citizenship, as is naturalization, as is gaining citizenship via a statute, as e.g. in the case of PR. —85.178.107.55 (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Article II, Clause 5 of the U.S. constitution spells out one particular difference between U.S. Citizens who are and who are not "natural born citizens". No person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that natural born is not a class of citizenship. Like naturalized it's simply a path to citizenship. Being eligible for President is not a right that citizens have. If it were a right, everyone (including naturalized citizens) would have to be eligible, because all citizens have the same rights. 2.5 of the Constitution is simply a restriction for national security purposes. But it's in know way an indicator that there are different "classes" of citizenship with different attributes. —85.178.84.119 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(begin interruption)

The references are very clear: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html - U.S. Constitution topics http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf - U.S. Department of state

U.S. Goverment official position through the U.S. Department of State: 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. 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.

Do you have references or is just your personal opinion that the U.S. have first class U.S. Citizens and second class U.S. Citizens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.91.69 (talk • contribs) 08:49, November 3, 2009
 * I'm not sure whether that anonymous question above by 74.213.91.69  was meant for me or for HMTKSteve.
 * Regarding the very clear references,
 * http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html is one page of a privately maintained website owned by a person located in Williston, VT. It is a self-published source. WP:RS says, in part, "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, ...".
 * http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86756.pdf speaks, as you say, to "The definition of the 'United States', for nationality purposes". It speaks to the question of, whether or not a person might be considered to be a U.S. National. A U.S. National may or may not be a U.S. Citizen (see United States nationality law), A U.S. Citizen may or may not be a Birthright Citizen, a Birthright Citizen may or may not be a Natural Born Citizen. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To minimize confusion caused to the discussion surrounding these interrupting insertions, please place ayy further interrupting insertions continuing this interrupting discussion above the end interruption marker which I have added below. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(end interruption)

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

The U.S. Law was expressly extended through U.S. Law.

The U.S. Citizens in the U.S. Territories has constitutional rights expressly extended by the U.S. Congress by Law and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Island was expressly inserted on the United State definition for geography and Nationality purpose by the Nationality Act of 1940.

Guam, American Samoa was inserted on the definition by the Inmigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Finally Mariana Island was extended on the definition on 1986. --74.213.70.230 (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.70.230 (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Supreme Court quote on Torres v. Puerto Rico (First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Supreme Court):

On the other hand, this Court has held or otherwise indicated that Puerto Rico is subject to the First Amendment Speech Clause, id. at 258 U. S. 314; the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 416 U. S. 668-669, n. 5 (1974); and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the

Page 442 U. S. 470

Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 426 U. S. 599-601 (1976). In Califano v. Torres, 435 U. S. 1, 435 U. S. 4 n. 6 (1978) (per curiam), we assumed without deciding that the constitutional right to travel extends to the Commonwealth.

We conclude that the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment apply to the Commonwealth. [Footnote 3] As in Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, supra at 435 U. S. 601, we have no occasion to determine whether the Fourth Amendment applies to Puerto Rico directly or by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.70.230 (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the Congressional Research Service Report RL30527 section below.

--Seablade (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Natural-born in U.S. territories?
Speculation began this week by a national media blog and by Grover Norquist, a well-known Republican commentator about the long-shot possibility of including Gov. Luis Fortuño on the GOP ballot in 2012 to effectively outreach the growing Hispanic population. If this becomes a credible, albeit long-shot, option, it will generate debate as to whether someone born in PR in 1960 who acquired US citizenship simply by being born, and who could acquire no other citizenship at birth (contrary to McCain, who could have acquired Panamanian citizenship according to some) is a natural-born citizen for presidential qualification purposes. If not, if Puerto Rico-born representatives José Serrano, Nydia Velázquez or Luis Gutierrez were elected Speakers of the House, would that election remove the Speakership from the line of succession while they held that post? Pr4ever (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek Article Reference: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/25/absurdly-premature-2012-watch-vol-2-the-governor-of-puerto-rico-for-president.aspx

The Daily Maverick Reference (February 2010): The 2012 US Presidential Election: Who will take control of badly listing Republican ship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

--Seablade (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PR is (like the PCZ used to be) unincorporated territory of the US. The assertion by Senate was that McCain was a natural born citizen. If that assertion is true, Luis Fortuño should then also be a natural born citizen. But we can't know for sure. There have been arguments against McCain being natural born. But I don't even know if these two cases are comparable, because the law that made McCain a US citizen only came into effect after his birth, retroactively. —85.178.107.55 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reintroduced a better-referenced mention of the debate that has already begun, not about the citizenship qualifications of elected presidents or vice presidents, nor of actual party nominees, but of a potential nominee, similar to Lowell Weicker, whose case is analyzed even though he was a potential candidate, not a nominee or much less an elected President. Pr4ever (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Refer to the Congressional Research Service Report RL30527 section below.

--Seablade (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Vice President Charles Curtis, of Native American ancestry and born in Kansas Territory prior to its admission to the Union in 1861, served in the Hoover administration without any successful objection to his "natural born" status. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Curtis PRFinn (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are a U.S. citizen at birth if you are born in a U.S. territory, thus a 'natural born U.S. citizen.' Mystylplx (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Congressional Research Service Report RL30527
The Congressional Research Service (CRS), known as "Congress's think tank", is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective and timely, and topped the list of "10 Most-Wanted Government Documents" in a 1996 survey by the Center for Democracy and Technology.

As you can see on the following CRS Report for Congress on the Report RL30527 of April 17, 2000, title "Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer" adressed the Natural Born Citizens definition.

You can find this Report on the following WikiLeaks Document Release Web Address http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL30527 of February 2, 2009.

On the Abstract of the report indicate the following:

This report describes the four stages of the presidential election process: the pre-nomination primaries and caucuses for selecting delegates to the national conventions; the national nominating conventions; the general election; and voting by members of the electoral college to choose the President and Vice President. The report will be updated again for the 2004 presidential election.

'''Qualifications for the Office of President (Page 6 - 7)

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2 Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.

'''Footnote (Page 6-7)

1 Defined as including the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

2 Citizens born in 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''', provided they meet qualifications of age and 14 years residence within the United States. Residence in Puerto Rico and U.S. territories and possessions does not qualify as residence within the United States for these purposes. [U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Insular Areas and Their Political Development, by Andorra Bruno and Garrine P. Laney, CRS Report 96-578GOV (Washington: Jun. 17, 1996), pp. 9, 21, 33]. I. Presidential Candidates Qualifications for the Office of President Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that, to be President or Vice President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.1 Most constitutional scholars interpret this language as including citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens under the “natural born” requirement.2 Under the 22nd Amendment, no one may serve more than two full terms, although a Vice President who succeeds to the Presidency and serves less than two full years of the prior incumbent’s term may seek election to two additional terms.

Congressional Research Service reports

Reports by the Congressional Research Service, usually referred to as CRS Reports, are the encyclopedic, public domain research reports written to clearly define issues in a legislative context. Over 700 new CRS reports are produced each year; almost 4,000 are currently in existence.

--Seablade (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * CRS reports may indeed be worth citing here, but they are not definitive (the way a Supreme Court case would be), and we must be careful not to give either the report or CRS itself undue weight. Also, the claim that residence in Puerto Rico or US territories does not qualify for Presidential eligibility is probably as controversial as anything else on this topic; certainly, merely citing a CRS report making this claim would not constitute the end of discussion on the matter.  Richwales (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

--Seablade (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of naturalization of aliens, Section 4 of the Jones Act (1917) counted residency in Puerto Rico in the same manner as residence elsewhere in the United States.

--Seablade (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

American Law Review 1884
The understanding of "natural born citizen" was the subject of an article in the American Law Review Sept/oct 1884, 18 page 831

After a lenghty discussion and dissertation regarding the meaning of citizenship in the USA prior to the 14th Amendment and then after the 14th Amendment, the article discusses the question :

" ... are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of such birth are aliens, citizens therof (the USA) ?"

While discussing Lynch vs Clark the article reiterates the statement " it is well settled that the common law is not a part of the jurisprudence of the United States." And in Wheaton vs Peters, the (U.S) Supreme Court says : "It is clear there can be no common law of the United States. The Federal Government is composed of twenty four soverign and independent States, each of which may have its local, usages, customs and common law. ... The common law could be made a part of the system only by Federal adoption." This in effect disputes the application of the common law to the term natural born citizen, or even with regard to citizenship.

The article proceeds to state : "There is nothing in the Constitution to indicate that the term "citizen" was used in reference to the common-law definition of "subect", nor is there any act of Congress declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and the subject of citizenship being national, questions related to it are to be determined by the general principles of the law of nations. (1)"

"What the principla of international law is in respect to this particular question we will now inquire. Vattel (2) thus defines natural born citizens ' The native or natural citizens are those born in the country to parents who are citizens.' "

And later in same paragraph, the text continues quoting Vattel with " I say that in order to be of the country it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will only be the place of his birth and not his country."

The article then turns to Dr Bar. (ie Bar's International Law, Sect. 81) and continues with these words "And Dr. Bar is equally explicit; he says (quote) To what nation a person belongs is by the law of nations closely dependent upon descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it ---that of the father where the children are lawful, and where they are bastards, that of the mother, without regard to the place of birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent. Foundlings must, of course, constitute an exception to this rule; they belong to the State in which they are found. (end quote)

Continuing the article states " And the same principle is affirmed by Savigny (1) (Savigny on Private International Law Sect 351) (Quoting Savigny): "Citizenship indicates birth in a legal marriage where the father himself has the right of citizenship. (end quote)

Further the Article contiues " The rule of international law that the political status of the father is impressed upon the child, where legitimate, and that of the mother where illegitimate, is founded in reason and established according to the dictates of sound policy. As stated by Vattel (quoting Vattel) : By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights; the place of their birth produces no change in this particular, and can not of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him. (end quote Vattel)

After considerable additonal discussion the Article concludes with these words : "Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen therof (the USA implied), or in the case that he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of his birth."

The article written by George D. Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordwaryor (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This Law Review article was rendered moot by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)--216.237.208.19 (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Wong Kim Ark didn't deal specifically with "natural born" citizenship, as opposed to citizenship by birth.  (The issue was not whether Wong Kim Ark could run for President, but whether or not he was a US citizen at all.)  Many — possibly the majority — do insist that "natural born citizen" obviously means the same thing as "citizen at birth", and that it's nonsensical sophistry to suggest anything else, but there are others who believe the terms are different (and who might point to Collins' 1884 comments to support their view).  We need to acknowledge and treat both sides of the question in a neutral fashion.  Richwales (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth." They are synonyms. Mystylplx (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We can not necessarily say that "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" are synonyms. See the (recently closed) discussion on the proposal to delete this page — the consensus was that the issue is not obviously open and shut.  So, since the Wong Kim Ark case was not specifically about whether Wong was eligible to run for President, it doesn't close the door to alternate interpretations of "natural born" as possibly meaning something narrower than simply being a citizen from the time of birth.  Richwales (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion
This really is not suitable for an encyclopedia article--it's more suitable for Wiktionary. In English the phrase "natural born citizen" simply means 'citizen at birth.' The OED defines "natural born" as "a quality or position held from birth." Thus a 'natural born citizen' is simply a citizen at birth. All the court cases cited in this article were about the question of citizenship from birth. Yet the article consistently implies that "natural born citizen" refers to some special other kind of citizenship. There is no foundation for that implication, which violates wp:or. This needs to be deleted or at least seriously rewritten to remove that completely unfounded implication. Mystylplx (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. This is not a simple dictionary entry. This is in the Constitution and the history of the term and its meaning and applications is far more fit for an encyclopedia than a dictionary.  ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I also disagree. This article documents an important provision of the Constitution and the various controversies that have arisen in American history. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article.--Nilotpal42 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a deletion discussion (see template at top of the talk page) on this issue. The consensus was to keep the article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned?
Seems to me this section should either be removed or moved to it's own article. I don't see what this has to do with the meaning of natural born citizen. Some of what's in there has bearing on the question since it illustrates the confusion of the issue, but some candidates whose eligibility have been questioned have no bearing on the topic of the article. In the case of Chester Arthur, for example, Hinman wan't questioning whether or not Arthur was a "natural born citizen" but rather was claiming that Arthur wasn't a citizen at all. The same is true of much of the controversy over Obama as the claims that he was born in Kenya question whether he is a U.S. citizen at all and not merely whether he is a "natural born" citizen. Then there's Charles Evans Hughes. Does that really deserve a spot there? One person wrote an article questioning his eligibility but there's no indication it was ever even the minor issue in the campaign that was the case with Arthur. At least in Arthur's case there were more than one article and, although Hinman was the main voice, there were other articles that at least mentioned Hinman's investigations. In Hughes case, as far as I can tell, one guy wrote one article and that's it. Maybe "Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned" should be a seperate article linked to from the current article?Mystylplx (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that Breckenridge Long (the "one person" cited as having objected to Charles Evans Hughes' natural-born-ness) was an important figure in the Democratic Party in 1916; that he played a key role in drafting the party platform upon which Wilson campaigned; and that he later held an important position in the State Department during the Wilson administration. I'm not fully comfortable with dismissing him as just some random person who raised a vacuous objection to Hughes' eligibility.  Richwales (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but he was still just one person who wrote one article that had little or no impact on the election. Part of the problem with having a section for candidates whose eligibility "was questioned" is it's vague about how many people need to have questioned it for it to merit mention. Yes, he was part of the State Dept. under Wilson. He was also a paranoid who believed the Jews and communists were all out to get him. But be that as it may he was one person who wrote one article. So yes, Hughes eligibility "was questioned" by one person in one article, but it was not even a minor controversy in the campaign, so is it worthy of mention? Mystylplx (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a bunch of really strange comments, Mystylplx. Do you really want to insinuate that an anti-communist paranoid can not be a good legal analyst, because he's an anti-communist paranoid? That's preposterous. And moreover, you're saying it was "one person". How do you know that there were no other people questioning his eligibility? Have you studied all the newspapers and transcripts of the time? That's an unscientific argument from silence. In any case, the mere fact that the article was published in a respected journal, which was also the most widely circulated legal journal in the US, means that it merits mention here at WP. The editors of that journal might not have agreed with Breckinridge, but it's clear that they thought that his article had merit and was worthy of publication. And one last thing: How do you know that this article had "little or no impact on the election"? First of all, was it "little impact" or "no impact"? There's a difference, and a very important difference, because we know that Hughes was only narrowly defeated, so doubts concerning his eligibility could (in theory!) have influenced the outcome of the election. It's rather unlikely, but not impossible due to the narrow margin. —92.225.141.138 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, I only mentioned Hughes in passing--it was not the main thrust of my comment. Second, I only mentioned that Long was a also a paranoid who thought the commies and Jews were out to get him in response to Richwales pointing out that he was an important figure in the Democratic party at the time. But if we must go all into Hughes, I do wonder about any section titled Presidential candidates whose eligibility was questioned.  I'm pretty sure if we looked we could find someone who "questioned" the eligibility of just about any candidate. So the question is how many people need to have "questioned" the eligibility of a particular candidate to merit inclusion in that section? And yes, the fact it was published in a reliable source argues in favor of inclusion. On the other hand, the fact it is just one person and there's no evidence it got any attention or had any impact on the campaign argues against inclusion.
 * But, again, this is really only a side issue.Mystylplx (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But, again, this is really only a side issue.Mystylplx (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As for Mystylplx's original suggestion that this section should be either removed or made its own article, let me propose a related idea for discussion: Perhaps it would be better to broaden the scope of the existing article, renaming it to something like "Qualifications for the office of President of the United States" — with "Natural born citizen of the United States" as an alias/redirect.  Then we could deal more generally with various kinds of objections, including "not a natural born citizen", "not a citizen at all", and whatever else.  Thoughts on this?  Richwales (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ktmotox, 11 April 2010
Change http://www.scribd.com/doc/26233441/ to http://www.scribd.com/doc/29744612/Breckinridge-Long-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-Within because the current link is broken and the new link will fix it.

Ktmotox (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks.  Chzz  ►  18:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

✅

The Insular Cases
Would what this article says clash in any way with what the Insular Cases article says about the citizenship of people born in US territories? I suspect they're not in sync... but may be wrong. Can somebody check both and see if there are any discrepancies? Demf (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

What is a natural born citizen?
The only sentence in the lede read, "The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States."

I do not know what a natural born citizen is and I feel that this article does not say enough about what this means. I read around and decided that the following must be what this means, and I added the sentence:

A "natural born citizen of the United States" is a person who has acquired birthright citizenship in the United States of America and who also currently has citizenship in the United States.

So people who have birthright citizenship can later give up their citizenship, and those people are not natural born citizens. And people can have citizenship but not birthright citizenship, and those people are not natural born citizens. I know this board is not a forum for discussing this, but is what I am saying correct? If it is not, could there be some explanation in the lede?  Blue Rasberry  20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition is listed under 'possible sources.' Mystylplx (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this edit, which inserted that sentence into the lede. you say that you reached that conclusion by reading around. you don't cite your sources, but it would not help if you did. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS, which is part of WP policy and says (and expands upon), "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While Bluerasberry's intentions are laudable, the fact is that there simply isn't any authoritative, universally accepted definition of the phrase "natural born citizen". There are several different views that have been advocated quite forcefully by various people over the years, but nothing is a settled matter of law.  Indeed, if you should find any source which claims to have the definition of "natural born citizen", you can't really believe it.  The best we can do here is to present the various positions and mention the court cases which have danced around the issue.  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I came to the talk page first because I knew I was on shaky ground. But it almost as bad still that the lede omits giving any information to define the subject of the article, and this is a problem.  One solution would be to say something, such as giving very short definitions which have been proposed.  Until those are up, I think I would support posting User:Richwales' description of the matter.


 * It's a settled matter in the English language. It's no more necessary for a court to rule on its meaning than for a court to rule on the meaning of "We the people." The fact is it has a settled meaning in English. The meaning is the meaning of the noun "citizen" as modified by the compound adjective "natural born."Mystylplx (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Can either of you summarize what this phrase could mean? I have almost no background in this, and it would not be easy for me to come up with an answer.  Blue Rasberry  14:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you've added words to than effect to the lede. I don't have a problem with that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the Founding Fathers (in a law passed by Congress in 1790) were explicit that children born overseas to American parents were natural born citizens. Rjensen (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, this illustrates the difference between modifying the requirements to be a citizen at birth and defining the term. Mystylplx (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy of McCain’s Place of Birth
The article states that McCain was born in Colon Hospital, outside of the Panama Canal Zone. The claim is attached to a footnote of McCain’s birth certificate. Footnote 48 contradicts this claim, stating that McCain was born within the Canal Zone at the U.S. Naval Air Station in Coco Solo. 174.55.80.89 (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The discrepancy is between what McCain's birth certificate says and what McCain wrote in his autobiography. Footnote 48 merely states what McCain wrote in his autobiography. Mystylplx (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition vs requirements
There seems to be a lot of confusion between the difference between a definition for "natural born citizen" and debate about what the requirements are to be a citizen at birth. The definition of "natural born citizen" is the definition of the noun "citizen" as modified by the compound adjective "natural born." It means "citizen at birth."

There was quite a lot of debate in the 19th century over whether citizen parents were required to be a citizen at birth, but no debate over the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen." Other than one newspaper article an an article written by a law student where the authors were apparently suffering from the same confusion, is there any foundation for claiming the definition is in any way in question? All the legal quotes and case history of the usage of the term are consistent with the definition "citizen at birth" and much of them are inconsistent with any other meaning. There doesn't seem to be any confusion amongst the legal community with the only exception a single law student. The lead should simply be replaced by the definition from OED, which is, after all, THE most internationally respected authority on the English language, and a sentence stating that there has been some confusion could be added. Mystylplx (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the OED is not especially strong on American law. Rjensen (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The OED is strong on the English language. It is THE internationally recognized authority on the English language. You cannot get a more reliable source than that. The Constitution was written in the English language. Unless there's some reason to believe the framers meant something by it other than its plain English meaning then it means what it means in English. To put it another way, until and unless the Supreme Court rules the phrase means something other than its plain English meaning (which they have not done) then it means what it means in plain English.


 * "To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood." — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).


 * "It cannot be assumed that the framers of the constitution and the people who adopted it, did not intend that which is the plain import of the language used. When the language of the constitution is positive and free of all ambiguity, all courts are not at liberty, by a resort to the refinements of legal learning, to restrict its obvious meaning to avoid the hardships of particular cases. We must accept the constitution as it reads when its language is unambiguous, for it is the mandate of the sovereign power." — Cook vs. Iverson, 122, N.M. 251.Mystylplx (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the OED is wonderful, especially for its historical quotations. even more wonderful for US law is Webster's 3rd unabridged and --more than anything else--Black's law Dictionary. They concentrate on American usage and are more often cited in American law cases than the OED.  see the comments at Amazon [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen] (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it define "natural born" or "natural born citizen?" If so, do tell? Otherwise, WTF? Let's remember that the Constitution was written at the time that U.S. law was just beginning, and was written in the language of British law. So There was no distinction between British and American usage at that point. Half the framers were lawyers trained in British law, after all....Mystylplx (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should explain this a little better. The confusion seems to come from a misunderstanding between definitions for the phrase and arguments about what the requirements are to be a citizen at birth. Take Vattels translated phrase "The natural born citizens are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Many have mistaken that as a definition, but that error is on the same level as mistaking the sentence "Boy Scouts are courageous, loyal and honest" as meaning that the term "Boy Scouts" is defined as someone who is courageous, loyal, and honest. Vattel wrote in French and the words he actually used were "les naturelles ou indigenes" which strictly translated would be "The naturals or natives." Those words ("naturelles" and "indigenes, "naturals" and "natives") were ALREADY defined in both French and English. They meant "citizen at birth." Vattel wasn't defining anything--he was merely stating what he thought the requirements should be to be eligible for citizenship from birth.

There certainly doesn't seem to be nearly as much "confusion" about this among the legal community. ALL the 'legal opinions' and language from court cases, including Supreme Court cases, which use the phrase "natural born citizen" do so in a way that is consistent with the definition which is "citizen at birth." Indeed, many of them are inconsistent with any other definition.

Other than one journalist and one law student, the idea that all this confusion exists is primarily a creation of birthers, who are themselves confused. The phrase has a clear meaning in plain English. No courts have ever defined it, but then they don't need to as it's plain English. They certainly have never redefined the phrase to mean anything else. One journalist and one law student claiming there has been all this non-existent "confusion" merely proves that one journalist and one law student were confused. Mystylplx (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt if I would have much in common with the birthers, but I'm still a little confused. It may be complicated by the fact that I'm just a curious Australian, unfamiliar with American tradition, but we speak English too. The problem to me is the words natural born. I can cope with citizen at birth, assuming it means someone who was a US citizen from the moment they were born. Natural born sounds like some sort of esoteric cliche. Some sort of insider talk. I obviously know what born means, but how does natural fit in? It's a word with many meanings in English (there's a problem in itself) and none of them, on their own, seem to mean what is apparently intended here.
 * This is WP:OR so can't be added to the article, but for the sake of satisfying your curiosity I can tell you that both the terms "natural born" and "naturalized" are a bit strange, and come about due to a peculiarity of British citizenship law whereby British naturalized subjects are, through a legal fiction, naturalized retroactively from birth. But then of course they found need to distinguish between those who were actually subjects from birth and those who were merely made retroactively subjects from birth. The word "natural" at that time was both a synonym for "native" and also carries the connotation "not made." Indeed, the root is "nat" which means "born" or "to spring forth." So "natural born" literally means "not made but born,' while the "ized" suffix in "naturalized" (meaning "made" or caused to be") let's the word "naturalized" mean something like "caused to be born" or "caused to be from birth" or something along those lines.Mystylplx (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The other question in my mind is Why? In my case this comes because some people got a bit excited about my country's new Prime Minister having not been born in Australia, nor to Australian parents. (She was Welsh.) In fact, in Australia's case there is no legal requirement similar to the American one, so there is really no issue. But it got me thinking about the American situation and wondering why. Why was that requirement put into the US constitution, and could a simple form of the answer be added to the article for the information of uninformed foreigners like me (and perhaps curious others)? HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The obvious answer is that they didn't want their "king" to be outsourced. Perhaps the matter is addressed in more detail in the Federalist Papers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not.

Congressional Research Service memo of April 2009
In the lede we cite a memo purportedly written by Jack Maskell for the Congressonal Research Service, dated April 3, 2009. I've searched in vain for an official version of this document. The reference we use refers to a copy on a public website that can be used by anybody to publish documents. As it happens the copy we have was posted by somebody who calls himself Patrick. Patrick is not associated with any arm of the government.. We don't know the provenance of this copy.

As the memo was apparently not written for public circulation and has not been authenticated, I don't think it's appropriate to cite it. It is emphatically not, in its present form, a reliable source, nor are the words attributed to the document verified as the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. It's just something posted by this guy on the internet. --TS 09:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maskell confirmed (via [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=225561 WND]) that the memo is authentic. WND, ironically, is not RS, so I see your point.  (Oh: CRS reports are generally not publicly published, so there is no "official" version.  Anyone, however, can request a CRS report from Congress members.)  --Weazie (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The best way to produce an authenticated copy is to get one of the government bodies, Representatives or Senators for which it was prepared to publish it on a government-controlled website. --TS 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel it should be in the lede (if in the article at all). It is a legal position, but not an official one.  We are giving undue weight to this opinion, essentially stating it as fact.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, although I wouldn't generally say WND is reliable in most cases, they might just be a reliable source in a case like this. If they say Maskell confirmed the authenticity of the memo to them I would be inclined to believe them. It goes against the case they are trying to make so it's not the kind of thing they would lie about. Joseph Farah certainly has plenty of credentials with real newspapers. Mystylplx (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's OK with me to remove it, though I do think it is authentic. It looks just like other CRS memos I've seen, and Jack Maskell really does work for them, but I can't find any reliable sources that cite it or even mention it either. Mystylplx (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

David Ramsay
I think that whole story might deserve inclusion in the article (though not in Legal Opinions.) I have little time right now so I will skim through it--Ramsay lost a Congressional election and wrote his dissertation ' Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States' in an effort to block the seating of his opponent William Smith. His arguments were rejected by the first Congress, and the Madison quote in 'Legal Opinions' was in fact made in context to Ramsay's arguments. Maybe a section on the first Congress? Which could also include mention of the 1790 Naturalization act?Mystylplx (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Maybe a section on the first Congress?" Couldn't hurt.  This article is a hot mess; a hodgepodge of quotes that don't clarify at all.  As it is, this article doesn't provide any clarity over which various definitions are in serious dispute, and which are not.  --Weazie (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Much of the article seems to have been written either by, or in response to, Obama birthers. The very fact there's an entire section devoted to Vattel is illustrative of that point. As far as I can tell the only real debate (to the extent even that exists) is whether anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen or whether birth on the soil is a requirement.


 * Having said that, though, I'll add it's much better than it was six months ago. Progress is being made. It still needs more work.Mystylplx (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The CRS is basically correct: there's no serious dispute over whether birth in the United States is sufficient, and some debate over being born abroad to two citizen parents. There is also debate over being born abroad to one citizen parent would qualify. --Weazie (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

McCain's fake birth certificate
Two points...

1. It's quite obviously fake. Two different fonts on a supposedly typewritten document and one of those fonts variable spaced. Nuff said.

2. Even if it weren't so obviously fake Hollander would still not count as a reliable source WP:RS. No more so than Lucas Smith counts as a reliable source. Mystylplx (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer to 1 - First of all you are engaging in Original Research [WP:OR] by stating your opinion as fact about the validity of the ref'ed BC which is not acceptable to maintain a neutral POV [WP:NPOV] and does not justify your deletion and replacement of the longstanding referenced info about McCain's birth place; Second the site that you reference (obamaconspiracy.org) is currently a dead link; Third your edits indicating that McCain was born in Coco Solo have no NPOV sources and on top of that, other references that are/were in this article show that McCain was born several YEARS BEFORE the Coco Solo Hospital was built, making it impossible for McCain to have been born there; Fifth, my RV had notes that included your supposition that the BC is not valid and you deleted them too, showing that you are not neutral to the article.  You should not be editing here if you are not neutral, your edits clearly show that you have an agenda here other than fact and showing a complete and well rounded article; Sixth, if a controversy exists, you include BOTH points of view for Balance.  Your version lacks balance, impartiality tone, and neutrality and you have not even attempted to gain any consensus for the significant changes you have made to the article.  The original version attempted to include both points of view and balance them.  Therefore I am again RV it to the original version.  You should not RV again without first obtaining a consensus to make a change and allow people discuss your proposed changes and investigate the sources. Seventh, Dobbs' "fact checker" blog is an opinion blog, not a serous news journalism site, and certainly not NPOV. So it cannot be used as a reliable source.  Add to that his description of the alleged other BC is hearsay, and not documented fact.
 * Actually all the reliable sources say he was born at Coco Solo Naval; air station, including the one's I linked to. And it's not a dead link now. Mystylplx (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer to 2 - The BC that was ref'ed was made a part of the court record and reported in the news. It exists, so it must be dealt with. If anyone has a different version, they can present it and we can ref and discuss and add it to the article.  Until then the information taken from the documented BC should remain intact in this article. --Br it com  07:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can include information about it's existence if you want. But stop saying it's where he was born. There are several Kenyan BC's for Obama that exist, where made part of the court record and were reported in the news. That doesn't justify claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Mystylplx (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I already did include information about both, and you rv'ed it a second time in favor of your one sided argument. You are not editing in a neutral way, you are acting like a mccain operative, and no I haven't forgotten about the last time you did this.  There is zero documentation to show that mccain was born anywhere BUT Colon.  You are basing your entire supposition on what mccain himself has said and what other people say mccain has told them (or his mother). mccain is not a neutral source (nor his mother) and he is certainly not a reliable source with his track record.  the mccains have a vested interest in making people believe he was born on the base, because he seems to think it makes him eligible for national office (it doesn't). In fact mccain cannot even know first hand where he was born because no one remembers where they were birthed, that's why we need witnesses in the form of birth certificates signed by impartial witnesses. So no, you don't get to rewrite history here with your bogus hearsay info.  Take it elsewhere, I am not fooled.  And you can drop the obama misdirection arguments as a smokescreen for your edits, obama's case has nothing in common with mccain's. If you wanna discuss obama's BC, go edit that article. I suggest you revert the article, until you can get consensus here, you don't have that now. If you choose not to revert your edits, we can get someone in here to arbitrate if that's where you want to go with this. --Br it com  07:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, I've been much more often called an "Obot" than a McCain operative. Look--this is very simple. Hollander is not a reliable source any more than Lucas Smith and Orly Taitz are reliable sources about Obama being born in Kenya. See WP:RS. Hollander is the only source claiming McCain was born in Colon Hospital. And the birth certificate he showed is obviously fake. All the reliable sources say he was born in the small family hospital on Coco Solo Naval Air Station. McCain may not be a "neutral source" but he is a reliable source. It's called WP:RS not WP:NS. Plus there was a birth announcement in the Panama American saying he was born at the "submarine base hospital."Mystylplx (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't try to obfuscate the facts Mystylplx. Hollander is not the source of the information,  the Public Registry of Panama is.   [| mccain's birth certificate documents] include not only his birth certificate, but also a certification document that is dated, stamped, and signed by the registry office clerk, and a notarized affidavit of the legal representative of the Panama Railroad Company (the company in charge of maintaining and operating the Panama Canal, and now the custodian of its records) that says that the Panama Canal Health Department records show that mccain was "born in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama". These documents were entered into the court records in the Hollander case were they became available to the public.  The Hollander case itself is irrelevant, the documents stand on their own merits and are self-proving, therefore without some proof of your allegation that they are fake, (your linked blogger armchair opinions are not proof) the documents must be presumed official, valid and reliable.


 * How is a document, conjured up with somebody's paint program "self proving?" The Hollander certificate came from a Panamanian con man named Lamb who claims to own the Panama Canal Railroad or some such nuttery. There is nothing on the document certifying that it comes officially from the Republic of Panama. There is no affidavit from the Republic of Panama saying that it is authentic. There is no signature of a Panamanian official on it. While I understand the Wikipedia's restriction against original research, at some point common sense has to come into play with a document that is so OBVIOUSLY a paste up job. The fake Hollander certificate was submitted at the very end of the trial, before Hollander's lawsuit was dismissed and no one ever authenticated it. It is nothing more than a piece of paper with no support. Against that, we have a contemporary newspaper announcement that McCain was born on the Coco Solo base (link in Dobbs' article).


 * Re: WP:NS, you are correct the above policy ref is wrong, the policy I had intended to refer to is now called WP:SUBSTANTIATE I encourage you to read that.


 * Re: the "birth announcement in the Panama American...saying he was born at the 'submarine base hospital'." This does not validate your point, it validates mine.  The announcement says mccain was born in a 'hospital'; not at home, not in an ambulance, etc. and in 1936 the only hospital available to the 'submarine base' on the Atlantic side of the canal was Colon Hospital which was adjacent to (but not in) the Canal Zone.  The base did not have its own hospital until after 1941 when the Coco Solo Navy Hospital was ordered built by FDR after the Pearl Harbor attack, until Coco Solo was built, the Colon Hospital WAS the 'submarine base hospital'.  mccain was born in 1936, so he could NOT have been born at the Coco Solo Navy Hospital. --Br it com  08:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. The source is Hollander and the documents are fake. Is that so hard to understand? They didn't have variable spaced fonts in the 1930's. They didn't use two different typewriters to type those things even if they had had variable spaced fonts on typewriters back then. Get it? Fake documents provided by a non-reliable source.


 * And they had a hospital there all along. They always have a hospital on Navy bases that size. He was born in the small family hospital on the submarine base that pre-dated the larger base hospital ordered built by FDR. Do you have some reliable source that says the hospital ordered by FDR was the first and only hospital that base had ever had?


 * This is an encyclopedia article, not a conspiracy nut blog. Even though we are talking about conspiracy theories that doesn't mean we have to buy into them. WP:SUBSTANTIATE is exactly what you are trying to violate. All the reliable sources say he was born on the Navy base. Only the conspiracy nut sources say otherwise. You are trying to push a conspiracy theory in spite of the evidence, which violates NPOV. It's obvious you have an ax to grind here, but this is not an appropriate forum for promoting conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's it? That's all you got?  An Ad hominem attack of your debate opponent and an unsubstantiated personal declaration that your tissue paper construct of blogger opinions amounts to "All" the reliable sources.  Where are your rational arguments for including your sources?  Where are your documents supporting your claims?  Why would any reasonable and rational person accept your argument for making such a radical change to this article?  What basis have you for your reasoning?  Is it your position that we should cast aside certified documentation from government sources in favor of a politicians 96 year old mother's recollections from 74 years ago, and some blogger's claim to have been "shown" a secret document by the mccain campaign behind closed doors? (Yeah, nothing could possibly be impeachable there.)  Are we to ignore the fact that the very same politician in question (and his mother) have a vested interest in the suppression of his birth documents because said birthplace, where it to have come out in the campaign, would conflict with his prior statements and raise doubts about his eligibility to seek higher office?  And we are to do all this for no other reason than Mystylplx wants... nay demands, that we allow this to comfort his/her ego and conform to his/her political motivations?  Do you believe Wikipedia to be your personal plaything Mystylplx?  --Br it com  21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, you are the one who started the ad hominem attacks and now you are whining that I pointed out you have an ax to grind? Grow up.
 * All the reliable sources say he was born on the navy base. All of them. The NY Times. The Washington post. Every major newspaper that's done a story on it. McCains own biography. All of them. Look in the citations in the article itself. And please stop claiming the fake birth certificate came from "government sources." It's an obvious fake. It's a forgery. Get it? Please take your ax grinding elsewhere.
 * I mean, look, if you want to close your eyes and believe that a typewriter in the 1930's was able to produce a variable spaced word processor font (and only in the parts of the certificate that are specific to McCain) then you go right on ahead. If you want to believe Fred Hollander is a "government source" then you go right ahead. Go write a blog post or something. But this is wikipedia and such nonsense must not be tolerated here. See wp:verifiability wp:npov and wp:libel to name just a few.Mystylplx (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are not going to offer anything better than your own opinion and a childish demand to have your edits included anyway, then you forfeit the debate and your edits will now be reverted. --Br it com 05:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can ignore it all you want. I have shown overwhelming reliable sources. You have one unreliable source. Please take your conspiracy theory BS elsewhere.Mystylplx (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Next time try building consensus among the editors first before you make such a radical change and you may find that you get reverted less. --Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com 05:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Next time try finding reliable sources before putting in your conspiracy BS and you will get reverted lessMystylplx (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this for a reliable source? John McCain: "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon..." Source: United States Senate website for Senator John McCain. []   --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  06:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You truncated the quote. The entire quote is "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base." You're not even being honest and this is starting to border on vandalism. From WP:BLP "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
 * The birth certificate that Hollander submitted isn't self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence, as it a foreign document. That Hollander filed it in a court (and that court documents are open to public inspection) does not mean the court accepted that birth certificate as genuine, as the court's dismissal was based on lack of standing.  The court did not have to (and likely did not) examine the birth certificate; it did not have to, and did not, rule on its authenticity or admissibility.  --Weazie (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your poorly sourced conspiracy stuff must be removed. Each time. It goes on to say the three revert rule doesn't even apply in a case like this. Please stop. And will someone else please weigh in on this????Mystylplx (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you admit that McCain said on his Senate web page that he was born in Colon. There is only one Colon in Panama and only one Hospital in Colon in 1936 (Colon Hospital) and neither was part of the US Administered Canal Zone According to the Canal Zone Treaty (shown in the ref'ed map).  Checkmate. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  05:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He said he was born on the submarine base, which IIRC is now withing Colon city limits. The city limits have expanded considerably. Besides, it doesn't matter. All the reliable sources agree on where he was born. Just because he used the word 'Colon'as he also said the submarine base is irrelevant. Mystylplx (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You can't mangle this fact into something that it is not, that would be dishonest. The man said he was born in COLON in 1936 (that means the Colon of 1936, not today and there is no submarine base in the area there today, that was there in 1936 too, so the context is clear; and he said he was born in a hospital. The only hospital in Colon in 1936 was Colon Hospital on the north end of the island. The Coco Solo hospital wasn't built until after 1941. See here:  .  Look, you have already admitted that he said he was born in Colon, just go with that. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No I did not admit he was born in Colon. I'll simply point to what -Stephan Schulz said on the BLP page, <Blockquote>McCain's usage is normal - note that if you are anal enough, neither Miami Beach nor the University of Miami are in Miami, my Alma Mater, the Technische Universität München, is not in Munich, and London is not a city.
 * You are welcome (as far as I'm concerned) to put that quote in an appropriate place within the text so long as you include the entire quote. But you can't use it as a basis to baldly declare he was born in Colon Hospital or anywhere else but the base hospital. Colon is simply the biggest city near where he was born. Mystylplx (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Then put it in, or someone else put it in. I am not going to because I don't edit anymore. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the point of any agenda regarding McCain's place of birth moot, considering his jus sanguinis entitlement to birthright citizenship? 174.55.80.89 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about Natural Born Citizenship. Article Two of the US Constitution sets up two classes of citizenship, those citizens who may become President or Vice-president, and those citizens who may not. John McCain's case has historic significance to the subject of this article. His case touches on several aspects of Article Two citizenship, including; what is the definition of, and geographic extent of "the United States" and its jurisdiction; does Natural Born Citizen mean birth within the United States, birth to two United States Citizens, either,  both, or neither; and when does/did a US place attain the ability to produce Article Two Natural Born Citizens.  But before we can draw a conclusion about how Article Two relates to McCain, we must establish and document the facts that exist surrounding McCain's birth so that the reader may fully understand the nature of McCain's relationship to Article Two eligibility and the factors that impact his claim to Article Two eligibility for US President. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  07:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. It's doubly a moot point since McCain didn't win and won't be running again.Mystylplx (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A suggestion - take this discussion over to the John McCain talk page and go through it there. This page should not have different information than the main JM page (or the early life sub page).  It probably gets more exposure than this page, so would be a good point for a central discussion.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm certain they've been through this before. Probably dozens of times, perhaps not with Britcom, but with other McCain birthers. But if Britcom wants to take it there that would be fine with me.Mystylplx (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your above characterization of me as a "McCain birther" is offensive and and meant to insult. You should remove those references. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, that where it needs to go. All three articles mentioning McCain's place of birth need to have the same information.  Actually, four - there's a mention in the 2008 McCain presidential campaign article as well.  There are discussions about this in the talk pages of those articles and, like here, the consensus has come down to the Naval Air Station as the place of birth.  I haven't seen anything new raised by Britcom, so I think this is settled.  Repeating things over and over without new information isn't helpful.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the Coco Solo article mentions that McCain was born there. Mystylplx (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets have a look at this map, Notice how Colon is on an island in the middle of the bay and Coco Solo is separated from Colon by Manzanillo bay:




 * On the following linked map (| Larger Map of Colon, Panama) we can see that Colon has a hospital at the north end of the island. This hospital existed in 1936; the Coco Solo Hospital was built after 1941 by executive order of FDR after Pearl Harbor.  --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  05:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a small 'family hospital' on the base prior to the larger hospital ordered by FDR. McCain is NOT mentioned in the Panama health dept birth register which he would have been had he been born in the civilian hospital.
 * There is no independent evidence that a "family hospital" ever existed in Coco Solo. Your link merely states that a document presented by the McCain campaign was read by a reporter but not released, and that reporter claims the document says "family hospital". That is unsubstantiated political propaganda, not verifiable fact.  No one else seems to have been born at this "family hospital", every other documented birth in the area at that time took place in the Colon Hospital.  It seems clear that "family hospital" was in all likelihood a "family" ward within the Colon, Hospital for US military wives to give birth in. What reason is there to believe otherwise? --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  15:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And all this is rather moot anyway, since all the reliable sources agree he was born on the base and none say otherwise. Maybe you should take this to the John McCain page and argue it there.
 * Oh, and Michael Dobbs is a serious journalist who happens to be writing on his papers blog page. wp:rs has this to say of such circumstances"Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
 * And like I said--it doesn't even matter. The NY Times, the Washington post, all major newspapers, McCain's own autobiography, and the U.S. Senate itself... Dobbs is just one more reliable source in a long list.Mystylplx (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the above draw upon the same source, an unreleased unauthenticated document produced by McCain's own people. The only other document source (the Panama records office) you reject. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

unlike Obama....
I removed the material about McCain not showing his birth certificate, unlike Obama, since the section is about McCain, and Obama has not even been mentioned in the article yet. Not sure how "longstanding" that has been and also don't know if an IP removing that is vandalism, even though an edit summary is always helpful. What do others think about this? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds appropriate.   Will Beback    talk    05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright. My first reaction to the removal of longstanding content by an IP without any edit summary was to treat it like vandalism. Standard procedure. My edit summary shows I thought the IP was promoting the POV that Obama had never released his birth certificate, which isn't true. It was released, examined in detail, and a description with images has been published. The next removal I thought was a misunderstanding of the situation. I am satisfied with your explanation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the precise phrase "unlike Obama". I'm also uneasy with the text saying "never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact checking organizations" — since, again, that issue hadn't been mentioned either up till this point in the section. Perhaps something like "McCain showed his birth certificate to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs" — or if more detail is needed, something like "Although McCain has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, he did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs" (note that the source uses the "declined to publicly release" language). If Obama simply must be mentioned, I think a stylistically better way would be to say "In contrast to his opponent Barack Obama (see below)" or something along those lines. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * (E/C)After further review :), it looks like the "never released his birth..." materal was added about 8 weeks ago, not that it really matters, but longstanding was mentioned in a revert,anyways. I'm also not sure about including that material, especially so "high up" in the entry. Richwales makes some good suggestions. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)ps, thank you Brangifer for that explaination...--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

See also section
There has been a bit of a back and forth over including a link in the see also section that is already linked in the article. Per WP:Seealso, I would leave it out unless there is some overriding reason to link to the article again in that section. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a subsection of the article is already linked in the article. A link to the entire article seems to be extremely appropriate in the see also section. See WP:COMMON. Mystylplx (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Further thought--I see there is one link to birthright citizenship hidden in the Supreme Court section where the phrase 'birthright citizenship' (as part of the text under Perkins V Elg) is is linked to the article, it is still appropriate to add a link to that article in the 'see also' section. See WP:Common and WP:IAR?. Just because WP:SEEALSO contains the sentence " Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section...." doesn't mean that link is not appropriate in that section. It points to an article on a related topic that is likely to be of interest to readers who are interested in this topic. Mystylplx (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I not sure I would say it is "hidden", and I am not sure exactly what your arguement is for going against a MOS. I understand common sense and ignore all rules, but there should be a really good reason for it, it seems, imho. Anyways, what do others think? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The "really good reason" is it's a related article (birthright citizenship) that will likely be of interest to readers of this article. Common sense. Mystylplx (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Threeafterthree that Birthright citizenship in the United States shouldn't be mentioned both in the "See also" section and in a "see also" template for the "Supreme Court cases relating to citizenship at birth" section. Possibilities might include changing the link in the section's "see also" template to refer to the entire article (not just its "Cases of interest" section), or removing the template and mentioning the other article under "See also".  But not both, IMO.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? There's an appropriate link to a subsection of the birthright citizenship article that focuses on court cases from a subsection of this article that focuses on court cases. Then there's a link to the entire birthright citizenship article in the seealso section of this entire article. One does not preclude the other. The fact is both links make sense in their individual contexts. WP:SEEALSO merely says that links are generally not repeated and then goes on to say use common sense. In this case the link isn't even repeated. It was a link to a subsection in one place and a link to the entire article in another place. Both links made sense where they were. Mystylplx (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * @Mystylplx, I meant is there a good reaon for going against WP:SEEALSO, not for having it in the see also section. Also, changing the "see also" template to refer to the entire article would be fine by me and would do away with it being "hidden" further into that section per above. If thats done, then maybe we can also delink it in that section. I will try that now. --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That just makes it worse. linking specifically to the 'cases of interest' section of the birthright citizenship article under the Supreme Court section of this article made sense. Linking to the entire article there does not make sense. The section in this article is on court cases. The link is to a section on court cases in another article. That makes common sense. There's no common sense in linking the entire birthright citizenship article there. Mystylplx (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mystyplx, I was originally editing from a MOS point of view. If you feel really strongly about this, I will defer and will not revert you. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Mystylplx (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unclarity regarding meaning of "natural-born"; need for further research
The interpretation of Art. II "natural-born citizen" clause seems to need further research. It appears that the statute cited in the existing Wikipedia article does not purport to define "natural-born citizen" for purposes of Article II presidential qualifications.

There is at least one law review article that tries to shed light on this (and seems to argue for a fairly liberal interpretation): Jill A. Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L. J. 881 (1988). Pryor's article (footnote 2) in turn cites the following: Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 357 (1950); Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968); Means, Is Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., Dec. 23, 1955, at 26; Morse, Natural-Born Citizen of the United States--Eligibility for the Office of President, 66 ALB. L.J. 99 (1904); McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 CONG. REC. 15,875 (1967).

An interesting United States Supreme Court case that discusses and analyzes various related issues is the following:


 * United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (holding that a person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. but to noncitizens is thereby automatically a "natural-born" citizen, but citing reasons indicating that a person born abroad, even to parents of U.S. citizens, does not constitue a "natural-born" citizen).

Below is some of the discussion from United States vs. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), beginning at page 655: " . . . . In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.' 'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478, 8 Sup. Ct. 569.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or or [169 U.S. 649, 656]  explanations of it, was clearly. though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,-one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party-that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy- [169 U.S. 649, 657]  must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,-that is, natural allegiance,'- 'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics : "British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the crown. 'Natural- born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [169 U.S. 649, 658]  person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.' And he adds: 'The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.' Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

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.

NOTE: The opinion is rather long and can be read in full, at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Cross-references; Also for further research: 14th Amendment
More cross-references from this article might be in order, in addition to the existing two: And any cross-referenced link-out articles (including the two noted above) should be checked for consistency.
 * citizenship
 * nationality

Let's invite a constitutional scholar to weigh in on the relevance (if any) to this discussion, of Amendment XIV, section 1, concerning citizenship.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.165.35 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A few observations
I am not a constitutional lawyer but only recently during this administration taken interest. My comments - FWIW:


 * 1) This is an especially charged issue now mainly because of the polarization over Obama's presidency and the notable secrecy shrouding most of his background esp. in re to birth and education.
 * 2) It does seem that the article is not written in a 100% balanced way.
 * 3) Since the 14th amend is so intimately involved I would agree it should be covered within this wiki article. Esp. the 14th amendment incorporation could be seen as superceding as well as encompassing Article II however it is not explicit and uses different language... especially in re to the matter of being subject to / "having sole allegience" to the United States of America.
 * 4) The Supreme Court just punted on the latest plea that rested on de Vattel - granting the filing of a brief as amicus curiae while rejecting the Writ of Certiorari for review apparently saying it is a "political issue."
 * 5) However, it should be mentionexd that there are State laws or proposed laws that would require full disclosure of relevant information in order to be included on state ballots for federal office.
 * 6) Reference to de Vattel translation seem irrelevent, i.e.: "A 1797 English-language edition of the 1758 treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel states the requirements to be "natural-born citizens" as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."[6] However this translation was not available at the time the Constitution was written.  Of more interest would be who wrote the words in the original and accepted Article II, perhaps we will never know the answer to that.  However, it is highly likely that several of the leaders of the band ie., Hamilton, Madison, Jay et. al. were fluent in many languages capable of translating. And certainly, Jefferson himself who was in France during most of this time was fluent and possibly the source of de Vattel(?).Danleywolfe (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As to point 6: I agree. Linking to constitution.org to cite a public domain work they have posted there is okay, but I don't think citing any of Jon Roland's original works or statements counts as a reliable source for other purposes, such as used on this page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some faith that in its prognostications the US Supreme Court does more than "just punt..." HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the obvious birther talking points: 1) the Kerchner cases (which was dismissed to due lack of standing, by the way) is discussed in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article; 2) the "birther bills" are also discussed there; and 3) the de Vattel translation is relevant because when the U.S. Constitution was written, no one had translated into English the phrase "natural-born citizen," and to suggest who could read what would violate WP:OR. (And Jay was not at the Constitutional Convention.)  --Weazie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a related discussion on this matter here: Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. Also immediately above that discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see the Territorial jurisdiction article. Without researching the relevant US law, I doubt that a child born of a mother who sneaked into a US Embassy or onto a US military base located outside the US would be considered a NBC of the US. My understanding is that a child born of a mother who sneaked across the national border into a US state (or, probably, into a US territory such as Puerto Rico or Guam) would most likely be considered a NBC. My understanding is also that the matter has not been adjucated, and that any firm pronouncements on the subject are expressions of individual. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're right. Being born within the actual boundaries is more certain than being born in an embassy or military base. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was essentially a territory. But he also had birthright citizenship from his parents. I think some of these points have been made many times on this and related talk pages.    Will Beback    talk    00:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The CZ was never US territory, it was leased sovereign Panamanian territory by treaty, similar to Gitmo. At the time of McCain's birth he was not entitled to US Citizenship by virtue of the place of his birth, i.e. he was not born IN the US. He WAS entitled to US National status (a lesser status) by virtue of his two US parents living in Panama and his father working for the US. The Panama & CZ citizenship statute for children born of US parents was not created until AFTER McCain was born. Sure, McCain is now a (non-natural) US citizen because he qualified under the later statute, but at birth such was NOT the case. It has NOT been shown that having two US parents alone passes the post for Natural Born Citizenship status. It HAS been shown that birth in a US State AS WELL AS two US citizen parents does pass the post for NBC status.  McCain cannot claim the latter and therefore a cloud remains over his citizenship status that he cannot remove even if he released his BC. McCain would have had to have been born in one of the 50 states or DC to have unimpeachable NBC status. --<span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:red;">Br <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:blue;">it <span style="font-family:Rockwell, helvetica; color:black;">com  14:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While happily accepting that many of the founders were fluent in French the translation of "indigines" to "natural born citizen" is not a natural one (no pun intended). Bringing Jefferson into the discussion is absurd - he was in France at the time and in those pre-internet days could hardly have been a source of the term.NyallM (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any real dispute about the source of the term--it was common English as it was used back then. Look at all the examples of "natural born subject" from British writing. It was well understood what they meant. Mystylplx (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is essentially what SCOTUS said in Wong Kim Ark. --Weazie (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be better to know what the ratification conventions said about the phrase, if anything. I imagine at least one convention would have covered it as a few went through the proposed Constitution line by line. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not. It was simply too clear and commonly understood to any merit any comment14:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One more observation, Emerich Vattel's "Law of Nations" appears to be the ONLY written work ACTUALLY referenced in the Constitution at  Article 1, Section 8  Powers of Congress  :  the  10th Sentence or paragraph. It would seem that the Founders and writers of the Constitution's reverence for Vattel's work, would direct toward Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen" in Article 2 Section 1.
 * In the spirit of civility, I will say simply: WP:OR. And please sign your comments.  --Weazie (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Danleywolfe," above, seems to forget that Benajmin Franklin, another of our Constitution's authors, spent much time in France as well, and was our unofficial ambassador during the U.S. Revolution. Also, as I write this, our U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled an oral argument hearing on the merits of the case regarding Obama's qualification as sourced from several lower court rulings combined, including Keyes v. Obama, for May 2, 2011. Lastly, "Britcom' gets McCain's status wrong: His father was a military officer, so the "occupying force" exception applies to McCain's facts of birth, thus making him a U.S. citizen ineligible for dual citizenship (with Panama), and thus having NBC status.   71.106.213.194 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Article move (renaming)
This article has sever political POV and requires a renaming to save all information and editor input, work and references. As it stands right now, the article has been written as a direct challenge in itself to facts. This violates the spirit of Wikipedia if not actual policy and guidelines.

Citizenship requirements for President of the Untied States is the actual subject being overweighted and requires it's own page to separate the two subjects. Not all natural born citizens run for elected office or the presidency. The direction of this article requires neutrality to the subject as much as any other.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is wholly incorrect. The passage states you must be a citizen of the US, in order to gain eligibility. If you are not born in the US, you must be a citizen and resident, for 14 years.

If the intent was for only those born in the US, the passage would have said AND, not OR!!

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.26.46 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Put it back. The name change is inappropriate for this article. The entire article is about "natural born citizen." There's not even any mention of the other requirements such as 35 years age and 14 years residency. If you think the article is a challenge to "facts" then state your WP:RS and fix it. Changing the name to one that is completely inappropriate to the article is no solution. Mystylplx (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution Society
The Constitution Society, http://constitution.org, (not to be confused with the American Constitution Society) appears to be a one-person operation. The "About" page lists only one name, and it gives his personal phone number. His name is also on the WHOIS entry. Unless there's evidence that this website is more than just Jon Roland's hobby, I don't think we should use it as a reliable source.   Will Beback    talk    22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The webmaster conveniently has his biography on Wikipedia: User:Jon Roland.   Will Beback    talk    22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See also: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3. Other issues aside, I think the consensus was that the site is a reliable publisher of primary source documents, but that Roland's commentary is not notable or reliable.   Will Beback    talk    22:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dropped the IP restoring the section a note to ward off further reverting and to encourage discussion here. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment/suggestion
I'm not a lawyer, but one thing which jumped out at me when I first read this decision was the following: ""No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; ..."."

It strikes me that it may be appropriate to insert this quote prior to the observation in the article saying, "Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conflicted opinion here.


 * On one hand, while I can see where that quote would be useful in an article on originalism, or one of its proponents like Justice Scalia, I can't see what it adds to a discussion of the Natural Born Citizen Clause;


 * On the other hand is a feeling of "WTH, why not? The entire 'Case law' section is a series of cherry-picked quotations without cited analysis or explanation of whether these primary sources are presented in context, properly interpreted. or currently relevant, so what difference does one more make." Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Hamliton and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
I find the section of this article that mentions Alexander Hamilton as a potential Presidential candidate to be misleading. It refers to him as being a British subject/citizen and from British America. Alexander Hamilton was born in the Caribbean. While this may be British America in a certain historical sense it could be misinterpreted to mean that he was born in one of the thirteen colonies that became the United States of America. Hamilton was viewed by some of his peers as being foreign born. I would like to suggest that this section of the article be amended. BenjaminHoy (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC) BenjaminHoy Looks like this suggestion was considered and made. Thank You.BenjaminHoy (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)BenjaminHoy

Vattel, Obama and previous presidents
CNN said that under Vattel, not only is Obama not a natural born citizen, but that six other presidents are invalid presidents. Shouldn't these six be added to the section on Obama? 64.229.101.183 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If there is a useful source for what was said on CNN, it could be of value. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This it? Google to the rescue. :) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Six other Presidents? Who besides Arthur? Remember that for those alive before 1788, there was an alternative "grandfather clause" which did not require NBC status. 71.106.213.194 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC) Wtmitchell - Please leave the politics and racism out of it and stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the info at the link above, though it does quote Bob Arthur (A Republican Montana state rep) as saying, "A natural born citizen, according to the law of nations and the law of nations and the study of natural law in accordance with a book written by Vattel, which we believe to be the standard for natural born citizenship, requires that you have two parents of -- of citizenship born in the United States to be the son or the daughter of a -- two parents born of citizenship in the United States." I don't know who the we is that he spoke of there. I haven't found a list of the six of six presidents elsewhere on CNN, but I see that Huffpost, that shining light of journalistic impartiality, bannered the info here that someone had commented in a politics forum there three months before the bannering, "By that standard, six other Presidents would have been illegible to serve (Jackson, Jefferson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson and Hoover). Yet not even that deters the birthers, because, after all, they were all white." See that December 29, 2010 Huffpost forum comment here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion about natural birth requirement.
This article is wholly incorrect. The passage states you must be a citizen of the US, in order to gain eligibility. If you are not born in the US, you must be a citizen and resident, for 14 years.

If the intent was for only those born in the US, the passage would have said AND, not OR!!

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.26.46 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

''' "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." '''

I think that it's fairly clear. You must be a natural born citizen, OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. You must also be at leat 35, and have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. The 14 year residencey requirement is separate from the citizenship requirement. In other words, you cannot be a U.S. citizen who lived in a foriegn country until right before the election. You must live in the U.S. for at least 14 years prior to your election. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the way it's always been interpreted, and the OP is engaging in a bit of "original research". The founding fathers sometimes put commas in weird places. Try reading the second amendment, for example. As a side note, by implication you have to have to be at least 35 and have lived in the US at least since turning 21. Only they stated it in a semi-convoluted way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Or a Citizen
Article II states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, [...]" The commas are verbatim, and appear (at least with modern English grammar) to allow either option. Such a reading would make the interpretation of the rest of the clause (starting "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") difficult; however, I would expect the point to have been addressed in legal opinion and by this article. It is interesting that the second comma is omitted in the article's extract (which I haven't verified) from Lynch v. Clarke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.138 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a WP:RS discussing this issue, please cite it. --Weazie (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They tended to put commas in weird places. Try reading the second amendment for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Description of Chester Arthur circumstances vs Barack Obama circumstances
Note: the edit I just did for Barak Obama's entry regarding the unclear disposition of his natural-born citizenship status is equivalent to the clarity and accuracy of the Chester Arthur description. If it has been sufficient CAA, it should be sufficient for BHO. --Sensical (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fat&amp;Happy just edited signifcant sections of the Chester Arthur section that had been substantially similar since 2009 and recent updates to the Barak Obama section by dismissing them as "unrelated synthesis". Huh???  I'd be interested in thoughts on this, as I believe they should be returned to the previous state. --Sensical (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, original research and synthesis. The reliably sourced facts relating to eligibility controversies remain. The opinions, with no reliable sources supporting them, and the random facts pulled from primary sources, without any secondary sources tying then to the controversies or the stated conclusions, were properly removed. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, get off it Fat&Stupid, you're just here operating as a polical hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.129.103 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Spoken with all the courage of the typical IP drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're from California. Well, that explains it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bias against a source you don't like
Wikipedia is not an authority, and our contributors are not gatekeepers. If some dead white male (wh'ale for short?) had an published opinion, it ought to be included.

Including a minority opinion does not give it weight, as long as we don't pretend that more people gave it credence than we know they did. But removing well-referenced information simply because you personally disagree with it is Censorship and also violates NPOV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_born_citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution&diff=427248002&oldid=427243313

So let's stop the edit warring over Vattel, and concentrate on how to describe his views, not whether. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Relevance is important. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you read the quote? Vattel gives an opinion about what a "natural born citizen" ought to be. Now it may not agree with the lower court that ruled against the anti-Obama folks, but it's not irrelevant. If he was talking about whether a prince's spouse should be put in the line of succession to the British throne, that would be a bit off-topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing whatsoever to do with liking or disliking the source. The simple facts are,
 * de Vattel does not mention the U.S. Constitution,
 * the U.S. Constitution does not mention de Vattel or his treatise,
 * despite the volumes of work available on the Constitutional Convention, nobody has added any content from reliable sources showing a tie between the two.
 * So yes, the question would seem to be "whether" to include his views, and the answer dictated by WP sourcing policies would appear to be "no". Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What source says that this guy Vattel's opinion has anything to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you saw the relevance, would you allow a summary of Vattel's views to be placed in the article? Or at least a sentence with a link? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First I'd like to see the link of someone notable confirming that Vattel's opinion is relevant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Saw the relevance"? No. In fact, I already see a probable relevance; what we as individual editors "see" as relevance is original research. If "the relevance was demonstrated by reliable sources", then certainly. (But n.b, there were other editors expressing objections to inclusion of de Vattel above, who have not yet responded in this section.) Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I'm getting at. An external, valid source needs to assert the notability of this Vattel guy's opinion in regard to this subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite.
Let's be honest: This article is a mess. It is full of cherry-picked primary sources, and a rather notable absence of secondary sources.

I propose a major rewrite that removes the violations of OR, primary, synth, etc. (And, frankly, that will be most of the article.)

Suggestions, concerns, etc. welcomed. --Weazie (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

WND daily [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293069 mentioned] this article. I make no claim as to the validity of their criticism. 173.128.233.23 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, WND - such the paragon of honest reporting ... <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/naturalborn-citizen-targeted Brian Pearson (talk)

WND may or may not be a paragon of honest reporting; the point is whether or not the information, and the charges (or parts of the information and parts of the charges), in its articles, about "ongoing 'edit war[s]'" (such as [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=294221 Natural-born citizen' targeted in more Web sanitizing]) or other matters, are true or not — for instance, the fact (if it is not a fact, kindly explain why not, rather than engaging in ad hominems, by mocking conservative periodicals and/or by castigating conservative writers) that an "'editor' deleted in its entirety a section of a Wikipedia entry for Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, whom Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin have credited for his influence on early American policy formation." Steve Peacock adds: "The deleted segment, titled 'USA Constitution,' had included a reference to de Vattel's 1757 treatise The Law of Nations, which defined natural-born citizenship as 'those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.'"

As for the claim that the "information that they say is missing is indeed still in the article," it turns out that, yes, Emmerich de Vattel still appears in the Wikipedia article, but only… once, in… one single sentence, relating to a court case from the …1890s. If WND's [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=294221 criticism] bares out, even partly, an entire section relating instead to the writing of the Constitution in the 1780s (!), and to the influences on its authors and on their policies, has been — conveniently (according to WND) — excised (perhaps by someone who just happens to be a die-hard Obama supporter?). Asteriks (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source that indicates the Founding Fathers did, indeed, base their idea of a 'natural born citizen' on Vattel's work, feel free to provide it. That way, the passage may be re-added, with that source.  If, however, you want the passage slapped back in, as it was, with no such source, you should not be too surprised if it immediately gets removed again for being in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, as it is - the other things given as 'possible sources' have clear indications as to why they could be possible sources, but the passage from 'Law of Nations', on the face of it, seems to have been included simply because it has the phrase 'natural born citizen' in it. 109.145.12.86 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OED
Demonstrating the old maxim that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I wonder what justification there is for the inclusion of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "natural born", and what useful purpose it serves. At the level given, the term is almost self-defining... "natural born" = "having a position by birth" tells us exactly nothing.

The OED, according to its article here, was founded in 1857; that would seems to make its inclusion in the "possible sources" section for a clause written in 1787 somewhat dubious. The sub-heading – English Common Law – is even worse, since the content makes no mention of the phrase's use in common law. There may be some usefulness in providing background on the non-legal, non-constitutional definition of "natural born", but it should be clearly identified as exactly that, not treated as meaningful to discussion of the technical meaning which is the topic of this article. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The OED does reference word usage prior to its first publication, so it is a reasonable guide to the general usage of words in 1787 (the entry for "natural-born" includes, among others, a citation of Jefferson); but we should really have a source if we want to claim that the general usage reported by the OED is relevant to the specific usage in the Constitution.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Constitution is written in English. The OED is the internationally recognized authority on the English language. The meanings of words in the Constitution are assumed to be the plain English meaning unless some court somewhere says they mean something else. We don't need to point out that the meaning given by the OED is not a legal definition, quite the contrary, if there were evidence suggesting the framers meant something different from the English meaning then that should be pointed out. Mystylplx (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Vattel
I don't really see any big problem with the way Vattel's "The Law of Nations" is mentioned in the [ current version] of this page. I do, however, consider it an unreasonable stretch to suggest that the words "the Law of Nations" in the text of the Constitution — however capitalized — were intended as a reference to Vattel's book, as opposed to the general concept expressed by the phrase. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that the Congress used the Law of Nations, and there is a direct citation within the Constitution itself, it is plausible that they were literally referring to the Law of Nations, especially absent any evidence to the contrary. However, to understand this, you have to recognize that the clause itself does not impose the Law of Nations as a text, but rather gives Congress the authority "To define," offenses against the Law of Nations. Effectively what it means is Congress is authorized the power to decide if anything within the Law of Nations shall be law. An example could even be the case in point, "natural born citizen" clause, as this clause was in fact made law. But we are not going to get to the bottom of this with the highly bias censorship going on against this unfortunate article.


 * I only became recently aware of this censorship war myself after arriving here from a Google search. But, If you examine this article and it's history more closely it becomes quite apparent that there are a handful of "editors" camping out at this article and attempting to blanket delete all references to Vattel and the Law of Nations. It's not just my recent contributions, but any and all such contributions from any editor, yourself included most recently, even though from indirectly editing one of my contributions. At first glance, one wonders what in the world these guys are up to? It doesn't make any sense that they would be deleting "Possible sources" for "natural born citizen" that contain and define "natural born citizen." Why waste so much time and effort on something so obvious?


 * After looking into this further since getting involved, apparently there are, or have been, people trying to sue President Barack Obama specifically for not being a "natural born citizen." Since the Law of Nations defines "natural born citizen," as born in the country to citizen parents, apparently this could be a reason this group of people are unfairly censoring what should be an effort of people working towards creating the most accurate and complete reference of the clause at Wikipedia. If this is the true reason, and it's the only one I can figure out so far, it's a shame that politics are being put before the Wikipedia community, integrity, and honesty. I hope nobody is getting paid to do this disservice. I'm the type of person that when I see something unjust, I like to help correct it, even if I have to go out of my way, such as learning how to become a Wikipedia pro.


 * Overall, I see a major issue in this article as being the difference between "possible," and plausible. Many things could be possible sources for "natural born citizen," but only a few are plausible. I think this could even be a solution to the censorship problems. What if we change the "Possible sources" into "Plausible sources," and require all such references to;


 * 1) Contain the actual phrase that we are trying to source, i.e. plausible sources should contain "natural born citizen" or a close equivalent, such as the "natural born subjects," reference, etc. An example of a possible source is anything that might contain some of the words of the phrase, such as "natural born," or "citizen by birth," but a plausible source should contain all of the terms or their equivalents.


 * 2) Have a reference that the source was actually used by Congress prior to writing the Constitution. Since we are trying to specifically define and provide information on the "natural born citizen" clause as used within the Constitution, and not just the clause itself, then it follows that plausible sources should be those actually used by the Congress that wrote the Constitution. Once again, we should focus on plausible not possible.


 * In focusing on plausible, rather than possible, with at least the two standards above, it would really put an end to the corruption which is taking place within the creation of this article.

Sempi (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Vattel is referenced later in the article, as a source specifically cited by the dissenting opinion on the Wong Kim Ark case. I'm inclined to think that that is sufficient reference to his work, and that we shouldn't include editors' hypotheses as to its use as a source specifically for the use of terms in the Constitution itself.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the edit war between Sempi and Mystylplx (exemplified [ here]) over whether or not to mention Vattel's work in the "Possible Sources" section, I think the justification offered (namely, that Benjamin Franklin said the book was "much used" by members of the Continental Congress) is weak. It could possibly be sufficient, and I personally would not object severely if the overall consensus were that it should stay.  But I'm particularly concerned about the point made by some previously that Vattel's book wasn't translated into English until after the Constitution had been written — so it isn't transparently obvious that Vattel's own French wording («naturales ou indigènes») was understood by the Founding Fathers as being identical to the English common law concept of "natural born citizens".  It would certainly be appropriate for people to insist on something more before allowing a connection between Vattel and the "natural born citizen" clause; and if the paragraph in question is allowed to remain in the article, I believe it should say something like "Le Droit des gens by Emerich de Vattel, translated into English in 1797 as The Law of Nations".  Note that Wikipedia's policies on preserving sourced content do not (as I understand them) demand that we must keep irrelevant sourced material simply because it is sourced.  And to repeat what I said earlier, I certainly do reject any suggestion that the phrase "the Law of Nations" in the text of the Constitution itself clearly and indisputably refers to Vattel's work — a claim which, if plausible, would IMO have been enough to justify mentioning Le Droit des gens here.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As noted above, I don't see how actually having a reference that the source was actually used by Congress prior to writing the "natural born citizen" clause would make it less plausible than sources which have no such reference of use at all. Quite the opposite, indeed, unless we're trying to be intellectually dishonest, or propagating a censorship war.


 * In the same reference where Franklin is cited, but which I didn't specifically highlight for the sake of brevity, it also states that the first English version of Vattel's Law of Nations was published in 1760, and received at Harvard by 1773.


 * Finally, once again, I would note that in 'possibles' there actually is no necessity to "insist" on something more, especially where other current possible sources have little if no referenced connection at all. So, let's get rid of the possibles section altogether, which are too ambiguous anyway and potentially numerous. We should be focusing on a Plausible Sources section with at lest the minor qualifiers being the same or equivalent phrase, and recognized use by Congress.

Sempi (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, If you think it was just me vs. Sempi then you haven't been paying attention. I reverted Sempi several times today only. Before that it was others. The edit war has been going on for several days and I only came in today. I will also note that Vattels treatise in fact was translated into English twice prior to the ratification--but neither of those translations used the phrase "natural born citizen." In both those cases the phrase «naturales ou indigènes» was translated as "natives or indigenes." Mystylplx (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources! Where are they?

Sempi (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh again, I just looked and realized I violated 3RR. I hadn't even realized I had done that until I counted. I suppose I should be blocked for a day, much as I hate it, rules are rules. If anyone wants to go to an admin about it I won't fight or complain. I screwed up. Mystylplx (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After looking closer I see both Sempi and I both violated 3RR today. Sempi was also reverted by Loonymonkey and reverted back. Mystylplx (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All I did was restore your little group's repeated wholesale deletions, which were all made without just cause. I now see you guys have a history of doing this to everyone that tries to contribute regarding this article and Vattel's Law of Nations. What's up with that?

Sempi (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At least Mystylplx has admitted his mistake. Sempi, on the other hand, appears not to accept that he bears any blame at all — he reverted again less than an hour ago (already undone [ here], BTW), and he continues to insist that he is simply undoing other people's vandalism.  Sempi, please read (or re-read) WP:NOTVAND — particularly the third point, which draws a distinction between vandalism and edit-warring.  WP:3RR does exempt "reverting obvious vandalism" from the three-revert rule, but this is not vandalism (it is a content dispute), so that exemption doesn't apply here.  And even when obvious vandalism is involved, you're still better off reporting it to WP:AIV, rather than repeatedly reverting it and risking having someone else not agree with your interpretation of the situation or your claim to the exemption.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit, I'm learning as I go. I'm trying to do my best, and outnumbered. Regarding Wikipedia, what should matter is accurate, referenced material, not numbers of buddies willing to game the system. Based upon the history, there's a handful of them that are repeat violators, it's not just Mystylplx. It's one thing to edit and discuss, it's another to try to impose blanket deletions for standards they don't meet themselves. I don't imagine this is usually a problem at Wikipedia, otherwise it would not have grown into the great resource it is. No, this is specifically directed. I'm sure I'll eventually find the right person to report the abuses of this little censorship group to.

Sempi (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The current treatment of The Law of Nations resulting from a series of edits by (see [ here]) seems OK to me.  I don't personally object to a listing of plausible influences on the framers of the Constitution.  What I do object to is undue, unsourced speculation suggesting that a given item (such as Vattel's book) played a key role in formulating the "natural born citizen" concept; see WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH.  Anythingyouwant introduced some secondary sources which — assuming they really do cite Vattel's work as suggested in his edits (I can't confirm this because all I can find online are abstracts of the cited papers) — should make the reference to Vattel easily meet Wikipedia's standards.


 * As for mentioning the link (if any) between Vattel's work and the phrase "the Law of Nations" in the text of the Constitution, that definitely smells to me like a fringe theory which doesn't belong here (and I would object strongly if anyone were to try to reinstate it) unless reliable sources can be cited to show that mainstream scholars have seriously suggested such a connection. And as for Sempi's perception that he is fighting a one-man battle against a "little censorship group" determined to impose their slanted views on this article by any means necessary, I don't agree (!), and I would urge Sempi to assume other editors are acting in good faith (see WP:AGF) and try to work with them.


 * And lest people get the misimpression that I'm a shill for Anythingyouwant, I do want to say that while I'm basically OK with the way he dealt with Vattel, I am not nearly as enthusiastic with the part of his editing in which the Fourteenth Amendment is mentioned. This looks to me like unsourced speculation (banned per WP:NOR, WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines) — and, in any case, the Fourteenth Amendment long postdates the original writers of the Constitution and can't possibly have been part of the motivation for their writing.  At best, the debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment might possibly be useful as secondary sources discussing what the framers of the Constitution may have had in mind, as long as they aren't given undue weight in support of any fringe theories.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 15:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mystylplx, I'm confused/concerned by your latest edit (see [ here]), reverting Anythingyouwant, in which you say (in the edit summary) that this mention of Vattel is "factually inaccurate. He wrote no such thing, neither in French nor English".


 * The first Vattel quote ("natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens") is widely accepted in secondary sources (AFAIK) as a proper translation of Vattel's original French words. Although there may be a valid dispute over whether "natives, or natural-born citizens" is a good translation of the original French «naturales ou indigènes», I don't believe this constitutes sufficient grounds for throwing out the quote and discounting sources that cite it.


 * The second quote ("in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.") does appear to be a recognized English translation from the same paragraph of The Law of Nations as the first quote (chapter XIX, paragraph 212). I haven't yet checked the French original of this quote, but I'm going to assume this is a sufficient translation until/unless shown otherwise.


 * If the basis of your objection is simply that Vattel wrote in French and didn't ever write these particular words in English, I would consider that to be unreasonably picky in this context. No one (at this point at least) is trying to argue that Vattel is definitive proof of one specific position — only that Vattel is one reasonably possible source for understanding the "natural born citizen" clause — so we can legitimately cite things such as this without having to establish a clear and convincing quality of evidence.  In any case, your reversion appears suspect to me right now, and I'm going to revert it; if you disagree, please bring up your concerns here on the talk page and seek a consensus.  Note, too, that this reversion on your part arguably counts as a(nother) 3RR violation as best I can tell; even though you weren't literally reverting the exact same material, it's substantially the same issue in the same part of the article, so I believe 3RR experts would consider it to be part of the same overall incident.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Natural-born citizens" did not appear in English translations of Law of Nations until after the U.S. Constitution was ratified (and after Vattel had died). It is thus speculation to say that the Framers understood what Vattel wrote in French corresponded the wording that appears in the U.S. Constitution.  I will double check the cited sources tomorrow, but I am fairly certain neither of them actually say the Framers were influenced by Vattel when drafting this particular clause.  Again, it is undisputed that the Framers were influenced generally by Vattel; there simply is no reliable source that says the Framers adopted the wording of this clause based on Vattel.  And the use of "possible" violates wikipedia's policy against weasel words.  --Weazie (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weazie, you are clearly ignorant of the Law of Nations and the impact it had on the founders and US Constitution or you are trying to deceive people. Which is it?


 * To accurately make such a declaration you would have to have access to all English translations written prior to the Constitution, do you? Because I don't, not using the Internet. The lists of editions which I have seen, even published within editions of the Law of Nations itself, using Google Books and the Internet Archive, are not complete. There are various lesser known English translations and editions found on both resources, which are not included in published lists. There are likely even private or limited translations not even listed.


 * Further, the claim that the founders could not have arrived at "natural born citizen" themselves, using various editions of the Law of Nations in their possession, and based upon your opinion that "natural born citizen" was not directly translated in a Law of Nations edition until after the Constitution, ignores one highly important fact. The founders themselves were fluent in French, and could read and interpret both the French and English editions themselves; Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a couple of the most well known. And, the "father" of the Constitution, James Madison, appears to have translated Vattel himself.


 * Most importantly, the 1797 English translation was based upon Vattel's updated and final Law of Nations draft and notes published in 1773. The translation may have occurred in 1797, but the source of the translation itself was from 1773 and earlier, including Vattel's final work, which had already been available in other languages. Also, translated nine years after the Constitution was ratified, and including the same "natural born citizen" clause as the Constitution itself, this translation reflected an English interpretation of the most updated Law of Nations during the same period, not the previous 1958 edition. Yet, there are even more English translations to be researched, some formal publications and others informal, and, we should.


 * The Law of Nations became a widely used and respected reference, especially in America, right during the period before the US Constitution was written:


 * Two Works appeared within a decade of one another, to which the United States is profoundly indebted. The first was Sir William Black-stone's Commentaries upon the Laws of England, in four volumes (1764-1769). The second was Vattel's Droit des Gens, in two volumes (1758). From the Commentaries, which were a classic from the date of their publication, and as they are in the United States to-day, the statesmen of the American Colonies derived their knowledge of the common law of England, which was and remains the common law of the United States; and from Vattel's Droit des Gens the same statesmen derived their knowledge of the Law of Nations, which they were to apply and which they did actually apply in the war with Great Britain which made us a nation. In a letter, dated Philadelphia, December 19, 1775, which Dr. Franklin wrote to Charles W. F. Dumas, at The Hague, the venerable statesman said:


 * "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your noties and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author."

Sempi (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:RS; WP:OR; WP:SYNTH. Cheers.  --Weazie (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * False. You are ignorant, that's the problem here. Sempi (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've made an impartial request at WT:WikiProject United States and WT:WikiProject Law, asking for more editors to come here and get involved in our discussion.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weazie is correct. What Vattel wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which in 2 English translations prior to the ratification of the Constitution was translated as "the natives or indigenes." A more literal translation would be "the naturals or natives." It wasn't until a third English translation that didn't come out until ten years after the Constitution was ratified that the phrase was translated as "natural born citizens." The whole point of claiming Vattel as a source of the phrase is the idea that he used the phrase before the Constitution was ratified, and that therefore it would at least be possible that the framers got it from him. But that is not the case. As I stated, Vattel himself never used the phrase in any language, nor were his words translated in that way until ten years after the Constitution was ratified. Unless we are talking about some kind of quantum mechanical reversal of cause and effect then it's hard to see how Vattel could possibly be a "possible source." The way the section was written when I deleted it certainly seemed to imply that Vattel himself used the phrase prior to the ratification. It was factually inaccurate. Mystylplx (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you and he only think you are correct based upon no references provided and limited research, or your opinion. The Law of Nations was one of the main references used by the framers of the Constitution. The framers knew French and according to the reference above, James Madison translated Vattel himself. You cannot prove something by what you don't have, don't understand, or don't know. You guys are trying to discredit the very most likely source of "natural born citizen," through ignorance or purpose. The claim you are making is essentially that all possible sources should be deleted, because we don't have a direct reference stating, "this clause was based upon this source," which would be ridiculous to expect anyway. Yet, at the same time, you repeatedly add in your own references with no direct reference stating they were the source of the clause. You are dishonest to say the least. However, as repeatedly pointed out now, the subject itself, the Constitution does reference "Law of Nations," and the Law of Nations was used by Congress as cited by multiple references. The clause in the Constitution matches the exact clause of one of the first English translations of the latest Vattel work prior to the Constitution being written, even if the English translation was published afterwards. See notes and references above. Sempi (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Further note: There are some court cases where Vattel was argued to be the source of that clause, but it should be remembered that these were primarily arguments against the idea that African Americans were citizens. The argument was that, although at that point the slaves had been freed, and that they were indisputably born on U.S. soil, that they still weren't citizens since their parents weren't citizens. See Dred Scott v Sandford as an example. Mystylplx (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have, again, removed the reference to Vattel for the simple reason there is NO reliable source saying Vattel influenced the Framers when they wrote this particular clause. I've read the cited articles (Chin's "First Impressions" and Han's in Drake Law Review), and neither support that proposition; if I am wrong, please cite the exact page in these articles. (And for similar reasons, I removed the references to the pre-revolutionary constitutions.) --Weazie (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not read the references in this very discussion! Your claim that Vattel did not influence the framers is absolutely false. If you had even bothered to read almost any of the editions of the Law of Nations, or even the discussion here, you would know that. You are completely ignorant and your deletions completely unjustified and non referenced. Do not delete anything else without a referenced source backing up such deletion. Your opinion alone and limited knowledge is meaningless and is no justification for deleting referenced sources.


 * '''Vattel, replied Franklin, came at the right time:


 * "It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations." (Franklin to Dumas, Dec. 1775.)1'''


 * The fathers of independence soon felt that they were in accord with the ideas of Vattel. They were pleased with him for praising "the moderation of the English Puritans, who first established themselves in New England, "after buying from the Indians the land that they wished to occupy. Although their liberalism, progressively extended to include religious freedom, much exceeded that of England, and, consequently, that of Vattel, they found in the Swiss writer all their maxims of political liberty: the right of a people to separate themselves from a State of which they are a part (I, §§ 201, 202); the obligation of the Nation to assure happiness to ail as an end of the State, an obligation which they themselves inscribed in the Constitution; finally, the recommendation of those confederations of Republics to which, taught by Vattel and Rousseau that there they would find a sure guaranty of rest and peace, the United States was, from 1778 to 1787, to trust its fortunes. From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel's influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities. 2


 * Sempi (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, it is not disputed that Vattel generally was influential. This article, however, is about a specific clause of the U.S. Constitution, and none of your sources support the specific assertion being made. See WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.") --Weazie (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Possible sources are verifiable. You're confusing "verifiable" with "conclusive." Obviously, if anyone had already discovered a reference that conclusively stated the source of the clause in this article, then this discussion would be unnecessary. Until then, we need to focus on the most plausible sources - sources which are verifiable, contain the clause, and were used by the framers of the Constitution. You cannot justly delete a referenced source as not being possible without providing an equally verifiable source that conclusively shows that it is in fact not possible. This is why I suggest changing the section from possible to plausible. Sempi (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No reliable source has said Vattel was a possible source for this specific clause. See alsoWP:OR; WP:SYNTH; WP:UNDUE; WP:WEASEL. --Weazie (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A possible source does not specifically state one way or the other - that would be a conclusive source. All sources I have seen posted were reliable. Not only is it apparent that you are ignorant of the subject, but you are now ignoring responses in this discussion. I have already explained this to you. Sempi (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is never satisfactory for an editor to find a text that is a possible source. Please take the time to read some of the policies at the links already provided. In particular, WP:SYNTH requires that a reliable source has connected the dots—an editor cannot add a text that in their opinion may relate to the topic of an article. Please also review WP:CIVIL which is another policy—it is never satisfactory to include comments like "you are ignorant of the subject". Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I agree. Maybe there shouldn't be a "Possible sources" section. The problem is not that the sources have been unreliable, the problem is the title of the section itself. I already suggested a solution at the very beginning of this discussion section. Ignorance describes a lack of knowledge, it was not used profanely. Based upon several of Weazie's replies in this discussion, he was clearly ignorant of the discussion and referenced materials he replied to. That also means he's making deletions without reading the discussion. Sempi (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If a court ever reaches the merits of this issue, there's a 99.999% chance that the court will hold (as the court should) that a "natural born citizen" means someone who is a citizen at birth, regardless of parentage. But Vattel's view is nevertheless notable, so I don't see the point of an edit-war about merely mentioning Vattel.  I've inserted the page numbers into the footnotes as requested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you have reverted already. Fine.  I don't have the interest to pursue this further, and was merely seeking to stop a silly edit war.  I could cite a dozen more reliable sources that confirm Vattel has often been cited not just for the term "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, but also for the term "citizen" in the Constitution.  Wikipedia articles about court cases and related legal issues typically describe minority views, and this is a case in point.  I do not believe that Vattel's view was the prevailing view, but he was highly influential.  I object to politicization and whitewashing of Wikipedia articles, and prefer NPOV, even when I may agree with the position being advanced by the politicization and/or whitewashing.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have Reliable Sources confirming "Vattel has often been cited not just for the term 'natural born citizen' in the Constitution, but also for the term 'citizen' in the Constitution," please include these citations. But the two sources that were cited do not support this assertion about Vattel.  That's not political whitewashing.  --Weazie (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother arguing with you, or trying to satisfy you, because instead of modifying or rephrasing you prefer to completely delete material that is obviously relevant. Banging my head against the wall would be more useful.  :-)  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, if you have a reliable source that actually supports the assertion that was in the article, please supply it. But if a reliable source doesn't say it, it can't be in an article; that's Wikipedia 101.  (As is assuming good faith.)  --Weazie (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you don't understand the difference between reliable and conclusive. Nobody has a conclusive source yet, but that's the point of the article - to find one. Until then, we must research plausible sources and provide verifiable sources for them. By deleting whole sections of verifiable references by mulitple contributors, you are inhibiting this process. Do not delete any verifiable sources, which are plausible sources, without providing sources of your own showing why they are not plausible.Sempi (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point of all articles on wikipedia is report what others have said. See  WP:RS; WP:OR; WP:SYNTH.  It is not the point of wikipedia to "find" anything.  If a reliable source has said that Vattel was a possible/plausible source for this specific clause, please cite it.  --Weazie (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * All sources I have seen have been reliable; plausible no, reliable yes. You are continually ignoring the rest of the discussion from all other participants including replies to you. In other words, you are avoiding participating except for deleting the reliable sources of others and repeating yourself with no valid justifications. Do not continue this. The 1797 English translation of the 1758-1773 Law of Nations is one reliable source, which clearly translated these texts directly, as "natural born citizens." The Law of Nations was used by the framers and is referenced in the Constitution. Those are reliable verifiable sources, and it is plausible this is where the clause came from. Sempi (talk) 03:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I am acknowledging the concerns raised by you (and others), clearly I am not ignoring them. Again, it is not disputed that Vattel generally was influential.  Rather, your proposed edit clearly violates WP:SYNTH; no reliable source has stated that Vattel was a possible/plausible soruce for this specific clause.  --Weazie (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You have already proven that you ignored the discussion in your previous replies, by making false statements against material that had already been reliably referenced within this very discussion. You also don't understand the meaning of synthesizing. You can post as many sources as you like, and it's still not synthesizing. Synthesizing only occurs when you combine two or more statements from references to form a new statement that did not exist in either reference. What it appears that you are doing is making incorrect arguments to justify your deletions within this article, while having not even read the discussion at all. That is vandalism. It doesn't matter if you provide some links, if your argument or understanding of those links is wrong. Sempi (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Synthesizing only occurs when you combine two or more statements from references to form a new statement that did not exist in either reference." Which is exactly what you are doing, as no reliable source has said that Vattel was a possible/plausible source for this particular clause.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weazie (talk • contribs) 05:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. First of all, I did not contribute any of the sources you deleted. Second, none of the sources you deleted by anyone were synthesized anyway. They were all verifiable sources.


 * Now, here is where you will further prove yourself wrong. When you deleted most of the possible sources, you left three. Now, you show me where the three sources you specifically chose to leave meet your own personal requirement that they are stated as possible sources for the "natural born citizen" clause. Sempi (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)Again, try to improve text instead of deleting it all. Per WP:Preserve: Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. For the record, here is the removed material (plus excerpts in the footnotes): The eighteenth century Swiss scholar Emerich de Vattel has sometimes been cited with regard to this clause.[5][6] In The Law of Nations, Vattel wrote that "Les Naturales ou indigenes", are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. The first English edition appeared in 1760.[7] Ten years after the Constitution was ratified, another English translation of Vattel's treatise translated his phrase as "natural born citizens." He also wrote that "in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."[5][6] [5] Chin, Gabriel. "Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship", Michigan Law Review First Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008, pages 10-11: “Many decisions equate natives with natural born citizens….Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856) (Daniel J., concurring) (‘The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’) (quoting Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101)….” [6] Han, William. "Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship", Drake Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2010, pages 471-472: “It would be fair, then, to stipulate that jus soli forms a part of the constitutional minimum implicit in the Natural Born Citizen Clause.…Chief Justice Melville Fuller … pointed to the continental publicists of the law of nations, quoting one as saying that ‘in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country’….Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 708 (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (quoting 1 EMMERICH DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS ch. 19, § 212….” But like I said, I really don't have time to argue more about this. I was merely trying to defuse an edit-war, but evidently it didn't work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It worked, you definitely came here at the right time and helped others defuse the main vandals. The problem is, we have a new vandal, or at least someone pretending to be new, named Weazie. I appreciate your contributions. Sempi (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Those cited sources don't support the assertion in the article; there's no way to "fix" that. Vattel was discussed in Scott and Wong Kim Ark; the discussion about those cases would be the logical place to include Vattel.--Weazie (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think that Justice Daniel's citation of Vattel is a logical thing to include in this WIkipedia article, then it might not be the best move to completely delete it from this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vattel is already mentioned in the Wong Kim Ark section. (And, no, I don't think what one justice wrote is a logical thing to include in this article, but it might be able to do so without giving undue weight.  Regardless that doesn't justify where it was located.)  --Weazie (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you indicated that the two footnotes I inserted would be more appropriate elsewhere in the article, I put them there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Sempi's suggestion, I have removed the "Possible Sources" section, as to avoid a totally pointless edit war. --Weazie (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest removal of the whole section. This further proves that you are ignoring the discussion except for what you want to use as an excuse. What I wrote is, "Maybe there shouldn't be a "Possible sources" section. The problem is not that the sources have been unreliable, the problem is the title of the section itself. I already suggested a solution at the very beginning of this discussion section."


 * Weazie, your deletion of the whole section, apparently based upon only my first sentence, without reading the other two, nor the previous suggestion mentioned in the third, proves you were shopping for excuses to delete things, while ignoring the rest of the discussion. Even within the same paragraph! Sempi (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

There are no reliable nor conclusive sources because it's plain English!! We don't need secondary sources to tell us what it means any more than we need secondary sources to tell us what "We the people" means. It's English. The Constitution was written in English! The whole idea that Vattel was the source of that phrase is now, and has always been, a racist argument. In the 19th century it was about attempting to deny citizenship to African Americans and Orientals. In the 21st century it's about attempting to deny a black man can be eligible to be President. Vattel never used the phrase so it is completely impossible that he was the source of it. As for the idea that Vattel was influential in any way re the Constitution, I'll simply point out that the entire bill of rights stands in direct opposition to what Vattel wrote. If he had any influence it was in the sense the framers disagreed with him on just about everything. Vattel was opposed to both freedom of speech and freedom of press. (see book 1 chapter 114.) Vattel thought the most important job of the state was to establish a state run religion(see book 1 chapters 127-144)--the framers prohibited exactly that. Vattel thought only aristocrats should be allowed to own weapons--the framers gave us the 2nd ammendment 'right to bear arms.' If Vattel had any influence on the Constitution it was in the opposite sense--the framers disagreed with him on virtually everything. I don't disagree with the "possible sources" section being removed. The very name "possible sources" indicates it is speculation. Best in an Encyclopedia to stick to facts and avoid speculation. Mystylplx (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely untrue. The natural born citizen requirement is solely a requirement for Presidents. If the definition of "natural born citizen" was clearly understood in plain English, this discussion would not be happening and there would not have been dozens of lawsuits over it, regarding anything but the presidency. At the time the Constitution was written, it was clearly understood in plain English because people were not ignorant of the Law of Nations. This entire reply shows that you are in fact ignorant of or are misinterpreting the Law of Nations yourself. Try carefully reading it sometime as the founders did. The Law of Nations was one of their basis for framing a government that protected LIBERTY. The Law of Nations is based upon Natural Law or Liberty. Stop trying to lie your way through life.

["The Law of Nations" and the Declaration of Independence | http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html]

I've read it. You obviously haven't. Vattels treatise had more influence on the Declaration Of Independence than it did on the Constitution. As I pointed out, the framers disagreed with Vattel much more than they agreed. This discussion would not be happening except the use of the compound-adjective "natural born" is archaic. At the time it was written it was well understood by everyone. There was no ambiguity then, Vattel wasn't even introduced as a possible source of the clause until 19th century racist arguments trying to prohibit blacks and orientals from being citizens. Then the whole argument was dropped until the 21st century when it was once again raised as a racist argument against a black man being eligible to be President. Mystylplx (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this "discussion" has long since stopped being a productive attempt to improve the article, and can be closed. (WP:NOTAFORUM.)  --Weazie (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted, for the record, that the source cited by Sempi appears to be a self-published blog site — something that is generally not considered an acceptable, reliable source under Wikipedia's verifiability policy (see WP:SPS).


 * Regarding Sempi's effectively calling Mystylplx either ignorant or a liar, this sort of thing has gone far enough. I've already cautioned Sempi that if he genuinely believes others are engaged in a bad-faith conspiracy to censor this article, he needs to make a proper, formal complaint on an appropriate admin noticeboard.  Failing that, Sempi has a responsibility to accept other editors' good faith, make an honest effort to improve this article by consensus rather than confrontation, and be willing to accept (gracefully) the possibility that his ideas may not ultimately shape the consensus.  If I don't see any change in conduct along either of these lines over the next several hours, I will most likely go ahead and lodge the required noticeboard complaint myself.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Richwales, I just reviewed your user page and if true, I don't understand how such a well educated, intelligent, Wikipedia editor, that has been focusing on citizenship issues, nonetheless, would support the censorship on this article surrounding the Law of Nations. I'm sure you've studied history and know the significant influence that the Law of Nations had on the framers of the Constitution and our country. At first it appeared that you were actually willing to help correct this discrepancy, but now it appears that you were only trying to temporarily appease me until the rest of the crew could figure out a way to hide the truth again. So what does it come down to now? Incredibly, you wrongly accusing me of calling people names, for pointing out their ignorance, and lies, rather than helping to improve the truthful history of the Law of Nations as the source of the "natural born citizen" clause. The only reason these dishonest people here are getting away with denying, lying, and hiding this source is because those like you are defending their antics, rather than discouraging them. That makes it look like you are not interested in defining and sourcing the clause either. Weazie is clearly an abuser of policies, editing, and the discussion, and yet you get upset with me calling him a vandal and reporting him? Shame on you. Sempi (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are aware that none of the contributions deleted by Weazie were mine, right? So I had no personal interest in reporting him. Sempi (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sempi made a Request for Editor Assistance, which was answered. (Sempi has also filed reports against several editors here, complaining of edit warring and vandalism.)  This appears to be a classic filibuster, but please initiate a WP:RFC if you think it has come to that.  --Weazie (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)