A librarian and a judge on “native born”

Continuing the steady drip of historical bits related to the natural born citizen question, I present a citation from the State Librarian of Kentucky, Emma Guy Cromwell, who in 1920 wrote a book on how to be a good citizen for the voters of her state, CITIZENSHIP: A MANUAL for VOTERS.

I present her comments, not as a legal expert or a constitutional scholar, but as a voice of an educated person from the early part of the 20th century, providing a window on the general understanding of things. Certain propagandists are attempting to create a false history of citizenship, a fiction that there was some consensus that never really existed. In 1844, Justice Sandford (Lynch v Clarke) declared a universal opinion, adding:

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.

My reading shows that the terms “natural born” and “native born” appear interchangeably in the literature, as we have just seen. Here is what Ms. Cromwell had to say:

There are two classes of citizens; native born, and naturalized. Persons born in the United States and children born of American parents while abroad are native born. Naturalized citizens are aliens who through the process of naturalization have attained citizenship.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Citizenship and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to A librarian and a judge on “native born”

  1. JM says:

    That’s the way I understand it as well. I was born in Canada to an American mother and I have a birth certificate stating that I am an American born abroad. I always thought that naturalized meant the process of applying for US citizenship, being accepted, taking some kind of test and saying the oath of allegiance and singing the national anthem with a bunch of immigrants in a big ceremony. Since I didn’t have to do that I’m not a “naturalized” citizen, and since I’m not naturalized, I am a native born American (I was an American citizen from the moment I was born) and therefore “natural born” (same thing).

    I wonder if they would complain if I ran for president some day (I’m white but the fact that I’m Jewish might be a problem for some).

  2. JM says:

    I should add that my previous statement doesn’t really apply to Obama since he was born in Hawaii, but it’s interesting to think about anyways (I was always wondering what they would say if I ran for president… :))

  3. misha says:

    Don’t forget: Israel considers us citizens, too. The Law Of Return is a little more complicated. Israel considers everyone in the world who is biologically Jewish, to be a citizen. There is always the question of dual loyalty; can’t trust ’em.

    Lieberman cost Gore the election, like Palin cost McCain. When he chose Lieberman, my heart sunk.

    True story: on 9-12-2001, someone said to me, “It’s a good thing we don’t have a Jewish vice president now.”

  4. AdrianInFlorida says:

    Newsflash…. Some Freeptard has it all figured out. I’ll save you the trip over to that cesspool, text below:
    Dick Cheney is the President
    bvw | 2 Oct 2009 | bvw

    Posted on Friday, October 02, 2009 10:59:49 AM by bvw

    Obana is ineligible, his electors therefore invalid — that means the Presidency reverts to the man last holding it, GW BUSH, and since he is ineligible, having already held the office two terms already, the legal President of the United States today is Dick Cheney.

  5. sarina says:

    The birthers are still saying: “Obama’s mother was to young to conferred citizenship to Obama”

    I told them: Well, what about if a 15 year old girl is raped and gets pregnant by an unknown man here in the US ,will the child be an American? What about a natural born citizen?

    They can’t answer to that!

  6. Bob says:

    Month old nonstory….

  7. nbc says:

    Few more day until the Judge dismisses.

  8. Heavy says:

    Old? Did you READ the article?

  9. Bob says:

    Yes; did you?

    Judge Carter made it clear that it is a tentative date.

    The article itself refers to Monday’s hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss.

  10. Bob says:

    OT: Per Land of the Obots latest show, there’s been docket activity in the Hollister appeal in the D.C. Circuit.

    Someone with a PACER account might want to grab what there….

  11. nbc says:

    Yes, old, it references Oct 2 but the date of the hearing was September 8 and while the judge tentatively scheduled a trial data, all depends on the hearing on Oct 8th.
    And things are not going too well here. Orly has filed a sur-reply to a reply which ignores Judge Carter’s order, Kreep has filed a motion to sever or a motion to file a second amended complaint, and Judge Land’s ruling is now part of the record.

  12. nbc says:

    October 5th…. Monday

  13. nbc says:

    And expect Heavy to go into hiding for a while. It’s a well established pattern. Embarrassment, followed by silence. Heavy can be soooo predictable.
    That he cites a ‘recent’ article which was written almost a month ago, on a topic of ‘scheduling a trial’ while ignoring the motion to dismiss, seems somewhat of an oversight. So much for mindlessly repeating rumors and myths.

  14. Heavy says:

    nbc: And expect Heavy to go into hiding for a while. It’s a well established pattern. Embarrassment, followed by silence. Heavy can be soooo predictable.That he cites a recent’ article which was written almost a month ago, on a topic of ’scheduling a trial’ while ignoring the motion to dismiss, seems somewhat of an oversight. So much for mindlessly repeating rumors and myths.

    No embarrassment or hiding here. Just some hope that justice wiil be done.

    How’s it going with the Olympics? Another chink in the armor of your savior. I’m sure he’s filing siut against those racists at the IOC.

    Get used to losing, libs. It’s all downhill from here.

  15. Hollister (which I track under 09-5161) had an Appellee brief dated 9/4 and a motion from Hollister/Hemenway dated 9/23 including, ta da, the fake Kenyan birth certificate!

    Hollister also falsely claims that Donofrio has “initiated litigation” in Hawaii, and throws out the DNC different state certifications. It’s a virtual birthers newspaper. And they are still, still hawking that Certificate for Out of State thing in Hawaii that wasn’t enacted into law until 21 years after Obama’s birth. Then they dump Orly’s latest in California as an exhibit.

    The defendents said:

    Notably, courts throughout the nation have dismissed similar suits filed by Berg and by others. See, e.g., Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008), appeal docketed, No. 08-4340 (3d Cir. Oct. 30, 2008); Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, 958 A.2d 709, 713 (Conn. 2008) (dismissing case regarding Obama for lack of statutory standing and subject matter jurisdiction); Stamper v. United States, 2008 WL 4838073, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 4, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for lack of jurisdiction); Roy v. Fed. Election, 2008 WL 4921263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama and McCain for failure to state a claim); Marquis v. Reed, No. 08-2-34955 SEA (Wash. Super Ct. Oct. 27, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain on standing grounds); In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in Pa., 944 A.2d 75 (Pa. 2008); Lightfoot v. Bowen, No. S168690 (Cal. Dec. 5, 2008) (Original Proceeding) (denying petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and stay); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing suit regarding McCain for lack of standing and lack of a state court remedy); Constitution Party v. Lingle, 2008 WL 5125984, at *1 (Haw. Dec. 5, 2008) (unpublished) (dismissing election contest challenging Obama’s Nov. 4, 2008 victory); Martin v. Lingle, No. 08-1-2147 (Haw. Oct. 22, 2008) (Original Proceeding) (rejecting original writ petition regarding Obama on several grounds); Cohen v. Obama, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 2008) (dismissing suit regarding Obama on standing grounds).

  16. And what if a baby had been found on the doorstep of the hospital? Right, citizen and natural born.

  17. Bob says:


    It was that request for judicial notice that really caught my interest. It is full of so many things of which the court cannot take judicial notice (or, more accurately, the court can take judicial notice of their existence but not the matters that they assert).

    Hemingway needs to stay retired, and be thankful there was no monetary sanction.

  18. Bob: It is full of so many things of which the court cannot take judicial notice

    I should think that no one would want any court to be taking judicial notice of Lucas Smith or Orly Taitz. (Run away, run away!)

  19. Heavy says:

    More web spinning. You people are diseased!

  20. nbc says:

    Nope, them are the facts.

  21. nbc says:

    These requirements ONLY apply if the baby were born on foreign soil

  22. sarina says:

    Why don’t you answer my question and Doc’s question? What citizenship will the baby have??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.