Talk:Natural-born-citizen clause (United States)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Founders/18th Century views

Interpretation of law is first to understand the understanding and meaning of the original legislators. This article is very weak on the understanding and perspectives of the Founders, with references from late 18th century/early 19th century. I added section: 5.1 18th century interpretations. David Ramsay was one of the founders and early historian. He explicitly discusses in detail the constitutional qualifications of president and thus his comments on citizenship by natural right are pertinent.DLH (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not only using OR and synthesis, but are also completely taking quotes out of context in a manner that seems to be deceiving. I've read the text you are citing, and there is no way you can interpret it in the manner you have without either some extreme fringe bias or deception. This needs to stop. Dave Dial (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This abuse of this Ramsey quote is popular with birthers. The proposed edit even references the birther case Kerchner v. Obama. --Weazie (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, we all know that anything used by anyone who can be characterized as a "birther" is completely whacky. WP policy must say that somewhere. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In this instance, WP:FRINGE. --Weazie (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ramsay made his arguments to the first Congress and his arguments were rejected. The opposition debate was lead by James Madison, the father of the constitution. I do think Ramsay's story could deserve a place here as long as Madison's rebuttal of his arguments are included as well. All that would be needed is a reliable secondary source that details the story. I don't know of any secondary sources that go into that though, only primary sources. If anyone can find a secondary source on this that would be great. Mystylplx (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pushing POV and OR

This article may need to be locked if editors cannot stay within wiki guidlines and brightline rules. There is a huge amount of available references but clearly they are not being used. It does seem to this editor that the article's sole purpose is to trump up false information and mislead readers in a specific direction. Information from references is being twisted and subjects are brought up but not fully developed to be specific about the end results. Please review wiki guidlines on editing policy before editing this page further.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? It's not helpful to come in making non-specific generalized accusations in a "drive-by" way. 74.93.21.110 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

TO AMADSCIENTIST, You are cordially invited to keep your hands off my enlargement of the Bates section. I bothered to look up the Bates opinion, cited it to its official edition, made note of a separate publication by the govt (which is very uncommon), etc. My next step is to quote the Bates opinion in greater length. My description of the underlying facts that led to the opinion was based on a reading of the opinion itself. Not POV but actually reading the document. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC) ¶ I thank WTMitchell for correcting and improving one of my additions. Good show! Sussmanbern (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor v. Happersett

Regarding this reverting of material, not only is the source a blog (and not suitable as a reliable source per WP:SPS), but the source misrepresents the context in which Minor v. Happersett discusses the phrase "natural born citizen" — as should be plain if you read the actual text of the opinion (88 U.S. at 167). Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, anything Minor v. Happersett may say about the meaning of "natural born citizen" is obiter dicta, not a holding, and certainly not a "binding precedent", because the question of anyone's eligibility to become President or Vice-President was not even remotely at issue in the case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW: This is the latest birther meme (that Minor is controlling law). I expect other IPs to act in a similar manner. --Weazie (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the gest of the case was about, in Minor vs. Happersat the Supreme Court said very clearly, very lucid "Let there be no doubt that the framer's of the Constitution meant that Natural born citizen is born in the nation AND to parents (plural) of citizens (plural) of the nation". It doesn't get any clearer than that. It's pretty simple, pretty straight forward, black and white. The majority of people can read that. No excuses, no sugar coating. The framers knew Vattel very well. Furthermore, they took out the word "citizen" and changed it to Natural born citizen, the original hand written version of the Constitution capitalizes the word Natural. The framers did not want the son/daughter of King George (born to an AMerican or born on American soil) to be US president. No more so than people living in US in 1940 wanted an offspring of Hitler to be president. Or in today's world an offspring of Chavez, Castro, Pak of North Korea, or some womenizer from Kenya dropping an anchor baby here. The majority of Americans want to follow the Constitution and adhere to the real definition of Natural born citizen. However, in today' extremely biased liberal press to is difficult to get the true definition, or even the discussion of the definition, into the mainstream without being brought into a side show pull down of insults using term "birther" or talking about how the Obama posted five photo shopped version of his alleged birth certificate on the internet. This is no more than a smokescreen in an attempt to subvert the discussion away from the real matter. Natural born citizen requiring born of the nation and to parents (plural) of citizens (plural) of the nation, with no dual allegances. The framers spoke and wrote extensively about the ills of dual allegances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.128.12 (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that they said no such thing. You are misquoting them. You can read the entire opinion here. Mystylplx (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter what the gest [sic] of the case was about".... In addition to reading the actual text of the Minor v. Happersett opinion for yourself, I would recommend you study ratio decidendi, obiter dictum, and prooftext. — Richwales (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

obiter dictum, indeed. If any rational person with a basic knowledge of English would read the text of the case, he or she would realize that, not only does the Court not say that, if did, it would have nothing to do with the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh. This is how they make our heads explode--by being wrong in so many different ways we don't even know where to start. Then throwing in random Hitler and Pak references while self-righteously accusing everyone else of throwing up a smoke-screen. Lol and it's just going to get worse as the election approaches. Buckle up. Mystylplx (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, the Minor talk page is getting similar treatment. --Weazie (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Added to my watch list. Mystylplx (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Minor v. Happersett re-revisited

The text in the case that is directly relevant to the natural born citizen issue, is (emphasis added):

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

and

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (ibid)

Now, Mystylplx deleted my subsection Minor v. Happersett revisited by raising two objections:

1. Because you truncated the quote and took it out of context. The preceding sentence is "Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization." See how they are saying there are only two kinds of citizens? Then the following 3 sentences which you also left out, "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." See how they are explicitly saying they aren't ruling on whether citizen parents are required because in that case they didn't have to?

2. It's dicta.

Regarding the first, I do not see what difference this makes, but let us add this sentence to the first quote. So now the proposed text of the first quote reads:

Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.

The second objection can be easily taken case of by adding that lawyers disagree on whether these statements constitute a precedent or are just dicta. Buenavista2008 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything. Richwales moved it to the bottom of the page. This is now redundant so you should delete it. Mystylplx (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

¶ Minor v. Happersett is being misrepresented, even misquoted, by birthers to suggest that it REQUIRES that a natural born citizen must have US citizens as parents, and a US-born child of non-citizen aliens (or even if only the father is an alien) cannot be a NBC. The case doesn't say this at all; it only says that a US-born child of US citizens is UNDOUBTEDLY a NBC and then says that, since that is the situation of the instant case, it will not waste time on any other situations. A big difference that should be made clear, since the birthers keep mentioning Happersett as if it said something useful. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See here re MVH, NBC, and the difference between the 1790 and 1795 naturalization laws. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor v. Happersett is relevent to the subject matter.

In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court directly quotes the Natural born citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the court goes further and explains in detail the courts opinion on the clause. I plan to rewrite part of the "Court decisions" section into sub-sections to include a reference to Minor v. Happersett and perhaps some other cases. I am considering changing the name of the section to "Court cases". I also plan to link to the Minor v. Happersett article here on Wikipedia. I would be interested in some help in setting up the sub-section format and with the writing of the section. I plan on putting an extended citation of Minor in the article since the justices wrote in such detail about the Natural Born clause. Below is the citation I plan on using as seen Here: [[1]]

Britcom's Draft Addition for Court Cases

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)"
Syllabus
Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
Minor v. Happersett
88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162
ERROR TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF MISSOURI<
Syllabus

1. The word "citizen " is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation.
2. In that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United states, as much so before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution as since.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had.
4. At the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the states; nor was it at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Page 88 U. S. 163
5. Neither the Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment made all citizens voters.
6. A provision in a state constitution which confines the right of voting to "male citizens of the United States" is no violation of the federal Constitution. In such, a state women have no right to vote.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in its first section, thus ordains: [Footnote 1]
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
And the Constitution of the State of Missouri [Footnote 2] thus ordains:
"Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote."
Under a statute of the state, all persons wishing to vote at any election, must previously have been registered in the manner pointed out by the statute, this being a condition precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise.
In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native-born free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri over the age of twenty-one years wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States and for a representative in Congress and for other officers at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not
Page 88 U. S. 164
a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior state courts of Missouri for willfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote.
The registrar demurred, and the court in which the suit was brought sustained the demurrer and gave judgment in his favor, a judgment which the supreme court affirmed. Mrs. Minor now brought the case here on error.

Page 88 U. S. 165
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is presented in this case whether, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, a woman who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri is a voter in that state notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the state which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion, we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this Court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination.
It is contended that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the State of Missouri which confine the right of suffrage and registration therefor to men are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and therefore void. The argument is that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the state in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship which the state cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.
There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community such as a nation is implies an
Page 88 U. S. 166
association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are in this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.
For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose, the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense, it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.
To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership.
Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," [Footnote 3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several states that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [Footnote 4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of
Page 88 U. S. 167
friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. [Footnote 5]
Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [Footnote 8] These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also. [Footnote 9]
As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [Footnote 10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or
Page 88 U. S. 169
who should be married to a citizen of the United States should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [Footnote 11]
From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men, abundant proof is to be found in the legislative and judicial history of the country. Thus, by the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different states. Under this, it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist, the case must be dismissed.
'

--Britcom 18:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to include the entire Minor v. Happersett opinion here on the talk page (much less to include it in the article); anyone who wishes to read the court's opinion can find it by following your Justia link. As for whether Minor v. Happersett is or is not relevant here, you would need to find reliable secondary sources which discuss this case and allow it to be seen in a larger legal and historical context. In particular, you need reliable sources which would explain why the court's comments about natural-born citizens in this case are part of the holding of the case, and not obiter dicta, given the fact that the case had nothing at all to do with whether Mrs. Minor was eligible to be President. — Richwales 19:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You may not edit or delete my comments or the copy of my additions, Richwales. Your opinion about the addition is noted. What you see above (now restored) is NOT the entire opinion; it is my draft of the addition posted here to be used for further editing purposes and constructive comment. If you are not interested in contributing constructively, I suggest you edit elsewhere. --Britcom 23:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, secondary sources would be needed but I doubt you'll find any since all they really say about the clause is that it's synonymous with citizenship at birth and that there was (at that time) disagreement whether citizen parents were required to be a citizen at birth but that they didn't have to rule on that issue in that case since Virginia Minor's parents were citizens. Mystylplx (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I know you Mystylplx, you have shown yourself in the past to drive a partisan political agenda in Wikipedia. I am not inclined to accept the opinion of a person who has such an agenda. --Britcom 23:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't know me except that a ways back you insistently tried to violate BLP by claiming McCain was born in a civilian hospital outside the canal zone based on a forged birth certificate on the internet. When I took it to the BLP noticeboard you were (IIRC) blocked from editing for some period. In either case if you want to contribute to this article you will have to be more mature than that and you will have to listen to everyone's opinions, including mine. Mystylplx (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mystylplx, there isn't anything I can say to make you like me. So why not give it a rest. --Britcom 05:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not flood this Talk page with that giant wall of text. Believe it or not, this has been brought up before. Each time it's brought up by an adventurous editor, it has been pointed out that the case did not rule on anything pertaining to this article, and we would need a secondary source to even consider it. Not said editors own interpretations and synthesis. Dave Dial (talk) 8:14 pm, Today (UTC−5)

(re-added after user Britcom restored his giant wall of text and deleted my comment)Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not my intention to delete DD2K's comment, it was reverted because it was part the same edit as his deletion of my above draft addition. --Britcom 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

¶ With respect, the Happersett decision is unhelpful and inapposite. The case was about women's vote. The court noted that the woman was born in the US to parents who were US citizens, in which case it was undeniable that she was a "natural born citizen". And then, because there were no litigants in any other situation (for example, none born here to non-citizens, none born abroad to US citizens, etc.), the court simply declined to decide on the citizenship status of people who were not participants in the litigation, so the court DID NOT say that "only" someone born here with both parents as citizens could be a natural born citizen or anything like that.Sussmanbern (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First, Sussmanbern's comment here seems to be out of place, perhaps he mistakenly placed it here, but intended to place it in the "Court decisions sections" section below. Second, as I said below, this is an encyclopedia article about the Natural-born citizen clause. As it says above; "This talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject", i.e Natural-born citizenship. --Britcom 10:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, I think there is good reason to expand this article to include what the SCOTUS has said on the subject. Let's not be fooled by those who want to scrub the article of information that doesn't fit their POV, and inform the reader in a neutral manner with relevant information that doesn't push a POV. So lets get to work. (Note: Squatting and Gangstering is not welcome on Wikipedia and I log, compile, and report those activities when I run across them.) --Britcom 23:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the above copy, you see several places where footnotes are referred to. I'd like some (neutral) opinions as to whether or not you feel it is necessary to include those footnotes in the final draft. I was thinking of just deleting them, but I am open to the idea of creating ref notes for them. --Britcom 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am open to suggestions about places in the above draft that could be redacted to shorten it up without removing any language that makes it unreadable or removes a critical phrase. --Britcom 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Richwales that the full requote of the Minor v. Happersett decision here is unnecessary and overlong, and that the link to the text of the decision at Justia is sufficient. I request MystylplxBritcom to remove the requote. If selected portions of the decision are felt to be relevant to discussion here, those portions can be requoted and discussed.

I will go on here to requote a portion of what looks to me to be obiter dictum from the ruling and discuss my interpretation (which interpretation is not only unsupported original research but also inexpert as I'm not qualified to render an opinion about legal matters). A snippet from the decision says:

... Congress, as early as 1790, provided [...], and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also.

I have added emphasis at a couple of points there.

In the first sentence I requoted above, the law as of 1790 was being discussed, and the term natural-born citizens was used. This term comes from the Naturalization Act of 1790 (quoting: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: ...") In the second requoted sentence, the law as of 1855 was being discussed, and the term citizens is used. The change relevant to the change in terminology came about in the Naturalization Act of 1795 (quoting: "..., and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States." It appears to me that the quoted snipped from the decision was merely being scrupulously accurate in using the terminology of the law as written at particular points in time in discussing the meaning of the law at those particular points in time. See this for snippets from both 1790 and 1795. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, The draft above is not the full quote from Justia, it is edited down to less than a third the length of the Justia quote. The relevant language that I think is important is found throughout the edited draft. Keep in mind that there are more than one theory of the meaning of Natural-born Citizen, and that affects the relevancy of the language. There is; born on US soil alone, there is born to citizen parents, and there is both. --Britcom 01:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are forgetting the most commonly accepted theory of the meaning of natural born citizenship--citizenship at birth. That's the meaning arrived at by the CRS report as well as two different courts hearing birther cases. It's also the meaning arrived at in at least two law review articles. Mystylplx (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, are you recommending the text you quoted be redacted or included? --Britcom 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, For clarity, I have included in the above draft bold emphasis upon the words; "born", "natural-born", and "birth". --Britcom 00:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Find secondary sources that discuss the case in this context. Your own analysis based on your reading of the case is OR (as has been pointed out countless times) and cannot be used in WP articles. This case is often used by various fringe sites to argue about the definition of how to determine a natural-born citizen. Oddly, they seem skip over this small phrase "As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts." Find the secondary sources. Put the sources in here. Lastly, please don't copy and paste large walls of text into talk pages. It's not needed (use links) and only serves to make the page harder to read. Ravensfire (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ravensfire, what I have created above is NOT a large wall of text. It is quite small as sections go. It is a a draft of my own editing for an addition. You are welcome to suggest how it may be shortened. What parts do you feel are extraneous to the subject? --Britcom 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC) --- Restored this comment deleted by DD2K Britcom 02:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Britcom, it's a wall of text, thankfully hatted. Find. Secondary. Sources. Ravensfire (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Britcom, IMO making the requoted bits hidden/showable is a big improvement. Thanks. As detailed above, I think that the context relevant to the snipped from the decision which I requoted above is the context of the specifics of and changes to US naturalization law in the timeframe discussed there, and that considering that snippet in that context sheds light on the "natural-born" terminology. That, however, is original research on my part which may or may not be verifiable in a reliable source. As such, while it may be appropriate for discussion here on the talk page, insertion of an unverifiable assertion to that effect into the article would not be appropriate. The same would apply regarding to any conclusions which you draw from your own analysis of the decision. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Uhm.. he didn't make the hidden/showable change. Why are you thanking him for the actions of another editor? Not a big deal, just for clarity.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

After a quick refresher look at WP:TPG, I presumed that had been the case. My mistake. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone think the last paragraph is critical to understanding the Supreme Courts opinion? --Britcom 01:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait...be more specific with that question please.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Amadscientist, I am having trouble keeping my train of thought because people are deleting my comments here. I was referring to the last paragraph of my above draft. Which I will rename Britcom's Draft Addition for Court Cases. --Britcom 02:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ravensfire that this is OR.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you can't make that argument since I didn't write the section, I am merely organizing the editing of an additional case under the existing subject matter section heading (i.e. Court cases). None of my own opinion exists in the draft section, I am not the author, and I am not the only editor working on the draft. Britcom 02:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the paragraph that begins "But if more is necessary to show that women have always been considered as citizens the same as men", this is certainly relevant to what Minor v. Happersett was about — namely, that Mrs. Major was unquestionably a citizen, though that didn't automatically give her a right to vote. But I don't see any connection at all to the question of what "natural born citizen" means. As for reliable secondary sources, I'd offer Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (see here), which discusses Minor v. Happersett on page 13. — Richwales 02:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is also this news article describing the relationship between Minor v Happersett, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional phrase "Natural-born citizen" from CNET (a CBS owned site). [[2]] Britcom 04:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't read that CNET news article as describing that relationship. If I've correctly identified the part of the article you're referring to, I read it as saying that Leo Donofrio believes that a snippet from the decision requoted there implied that both parents must be US citizens for a child to be considered natural born. I read it as CNET describing Donofrio's interpretation, not as CNET interpreting the decision in order to clarify their description of Donofrio's argument. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the CNET article said "the justices unanimously ruled", followed by the snippet from Minor v. Happersett referring to natural-born citizens, and then said Donofrio argues this piece of the opinion disqualifies Obama from being President. It does not mean that CNET (or its parent CBS) is agreeing with Donofrio that Obama is ineligible to be President — just reporting that this is what Donofrio claims. For what little it may be worth, I continue to say that American jurisprudence recognizes a crucial difference between "holdings" and "dicta"; that, when this "natural-born citizens" comment is taken in the context of the entire Minor v. Happersett opinion (including an elementary recognition of what Minor v. Happersett was about), it is obvious that the remark is dicta; and that the CNET writer (and/or his editor) were being sloppy in the way they described this piece of Minor v. Happersett (though the writer may perhaps be forgiven here because his specialty appears to be politics rather than the law). Additional reliable secondary sources should be sought to clarify the significance, if any, of Minor v. Happersett in relation to this topic. — Richwales 07:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, We are editing an encyclopedia. The name of the article is "Natural-born-citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution", it is the clause that is being documented encyclopedically here, not the legal meaning of the term "natural-born citizen". Since the clause is an original part of the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. federal courts are charged with interpreting the document and the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court of the Federal Court System, anytime the court refers to the clause and even more importantly quotes it in an opinion on a case, the court has, by it's action, made the clause part of an historic event. Our goal here is to include such historic events in the article so that the reader may be informed of their existence. We are not charged with guessing WHY one person or group or another believes a thing about the subject matter of this article (the clause) only that they used it during an historic event. We should not be about the business thinking for the reader or interpreting the meaning of events for the reader, the reader is smart enough to do that for himself. Our job as editors is to present the facts in an organized way and not obscure or avoid facts that we know to exist and have multiple sources to verify that such a fact exists. Let me reemphasize here that we are not here to debate or distort the meaning of the clause, we are here to document its existence and use, encyclopedically. --Britcom 19:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't quite correct. All courts in the U.S., to include state courts, are federal constitutional courts, and as such, when considering a federal constitutional issues or matters, can have their decisions appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You will need at least one reliable secondary source that explains the significance of that case regarding natural born citizenship. Then you will have to rewrite your draft in accordance with the interpretation given in those secondary sources. CNET merely mentions what Donofrios argument is, and I'm not entirely sure CNET counts as a reliable source for this anyway. They do technology articles--that article was on a failure of regex. Mystylplx (talk) 10:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it most certainly can....and is being argued..by more than one.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To the extent there is anything in Minor that is relevant to the meaning of Natural Born Citizen it is this--

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways:first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

But even that is both OR and Obiter Dicta. To include this in reference to the meaning of NBC we need a knowledgeable reliable secondary source to do the analyzing. I believe the 2011 CRS report mentions Minor, maybe there's something in there that could be used. Mystylplx (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That CRS report doesn't mention Minor. It does quote from the Naturalization Act of 1790 the use of the term "natural born", and footnotes that quote with the observation, "The 1790 statute was repealed and superseded by a 1795 naturalization statute which omitted the phrase 'natural born.' Act of January 29, 1795, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 414, 415. There is no legislative history indicating the reason for the deletion of that term; however, in that statute the phrase 'shall be considered as citizens' referred to the status of minor children derivatively naturalized upon the naturalization of their parents, who are not 'natural born,' as well as to the children born abroad to U.S. citizens, so it is possible that the deletion is merely a stylistic/grammatical decision." See [3]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2011 CRS report discusses Minor on pages 28-29. And these proposed edits violate WP:RS and WP:OR. --Weazie (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I think we can safely strike the last paragraph in the draft as being unrelated to the courts reference to Natural born citizenship. Britcom 19:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can also strike most of the header titles and the page numbers. Britcom 20:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Items 1 thru 6 can be stricken, I think, they are not necessary to understand the use of the clause in the SCOTUS opinion. Britcom 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have underlined the subject clause in the draft for emphasis. Britcom 22:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we can strike everything after footnote 9 in the draft. Britcom 06:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the previous paragraph can be stricken too. Britcom 06:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that The Economist is a reliable source? See here ==> [4] Britcom 12:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

As always, that depends on what information you're going to use it to source. Not gonna through darts blindly. Ravensfire (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is already cited here as a source about the Georgia hearing. The article says "The [challenge to Obama] rests on a willfully idiosyncratic reading of an 1875 Supreme Court case called Minor v Happersett. . . . Minor did not settle the question of who was and was not a natural-born citizen, as the plaintiffs claim it did, it deliberately left the question open (as does the constitution, which does not define the term)." (Emphasis added.) I see no need to cite an article that specifically says that Minor is not relevant; its omission from this article sufficiently conveys its irrelevance. (I.e., WP:FRINGE.) --Weazie (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors here continue to make irrelevant arguments about the definition of "Natural-born". This is not a discussion forum about the definition of Natual-born, we are here to encyclopedically document the note-worthy events surrounding the use of the CLAUSE of the US Constitution that the term "Natural-born Citizen" appears in. In other words, what anyone here thinks it means is not relevant to the article or the section under discussion here. What matters is documented events in which the clause was used, not the meaning. If anyone wants to discuss the definition they should go over to the relevant entry at the Wiktionary or any number of blogs on the subject and render their opinions there. Britcom 10:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE: "A Wikipedia article about a fringe theory should not make it appear more notable than it is." --Weazie (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It isn't appropriate to dismiss other editors who disagree with your perspective on Minor v. Happersett by suggesting that they are turning this talk page into a discussion forum, ignoring Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia, etc. "Encyclopedically document" does not mean that everything may or must be included indiscriminately — we must still pay due attention to the principle of reliable sourcing. If, as you evidently believe, Minor v. Happersett truly is a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court definitively put beyond further argument what the Natural Born Citizen clause means and how it is to be used, then there will surely be a plethora of reliable secondary sources (books by legal scholars, articles in prestigious law journals, approving cites from other court decisions, etc., etc.) to clearly establish the paramount importance of Minor on this subject. Find those other sources, and then we can talk about how to incorporate Minor into this article — but not before. Any attempt to interpret Minor, or even to report what would seem to be its plain and obvious meaning, without any foundation of reliable sources is a clear mark of original research, prooftexting, failure to appreciate the difference between holdings and dicta, etc. — Richwales 17:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't assume. You are putting words in my mouth, Richwales, and arguing against a point which I did not make. Your comment doesn't make sense (unless your intent was merely to elicit an argument, which would make me question your NPOV). Perhaps you would like to answer my most recent question posted above. Britcom 04:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Court decisions sections

While I appreciate the efforts here, I feel like it violates WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR, just as much as any other effort to quotemine a case and insert it into this article. (And the references need to be cleaned up.) --Weazie (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed these cases are discussed in the November 2011 CRS memo. So rather than delete this section, I hope to conform it to what is actually said in the CRS memo. --Weazie (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

¶ Altho my comments to that effect were deleted from the article itself, I think it is worth pointing out that the Lynch case, the Elg case, the Wong Kim Ark case, and the Steinkauler case, and others, pretty clearly establish that, in the case of someone born inside the U.S., the citizenship or nationality status of the parents is immaterial. If someone is born here, that person is a natural born citizen, notwithstanding that both parents may be non-citizens or that the person has dual citizenship or is simultaneously claimed as a subject or citizen by a foreign country. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions but we still need to cite a reliable secondary source in order to state those conclusions, clear and obvious as they may seem. Weazie's suggestion of using the 2011 CRS memo is a good one--there isn't any better or more reliable secondary source than the research arm of the United States Congress. Mystylplx (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. And I think we also need to realize that part of the subject matter of this article needs to be what the expression "natural-born citizen" means. Much as I (and some others here) may be convinced that "natural-born citizen" is by obvious dictionary definition equivalent to "citizen at birth", and that any other view is unquestionably a non-notable fringe theory and unworthy of mention, we can't take that approach here — we need to explore the sources, report what they say (in keeping with NPOV), and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Even before Obama was generally known, there were people debating whether "natural-born citizen" could only mean "born in the USA"; I'm pretty sure there are reliable, non-birther-blog sources which discuss at least the question of whether a person born to American parents outside the US (such as John McCain, or Mitt Romney's father George Romney), and deemed a US citizen at birth via acts of Congress, did or did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for being a "natural-born citizen". I would be inclined to say something similar about how (if at all) we deal with Minor v. Happersett, except that it simply doesn't appear that any reliable sources at all even bother to mention the birther (mis)reading of that case; see the Minor v. Happersett talk page for a description of my own fruitless search for any such sources. — Richwales 01:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you don't use the derogatory and demeaning term "birther", Richwales. Doing so is likely to land you in hot water. Britcom 08:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

¶ The Obama cases: The Georgia admin. court: After some dithering, I took it upon myself to make a silent correction of the Georgia judge's typo in referring to the "Arkeny" case (should have been Ankeny). Admittedly this typo appears in the original court typescript of the opinion, but if this opinion is ever published the editors will (or at least are supposed to) check the references and citations and will (or at least are expected to) make the correction themselves. So scoring a small hit on the typo in the typescript will eventually seem incongruous when someone checks a corrected published text. I can appreciate that someone here spotted the error but I hope you understand my motives in making the correction silently. Sussmanbern (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree; no need to highlight a typo. At most, the article could say "[Ankeny]" (rather than "Ankeny").

Still intend to conform the "court decisions" section to the CRS. --Weazie (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation to Congressional Research Service Report

Contrary to what many might think, the CRS is not a particularly reliable secondary source, and on this topic, they contradict historical authorities and court opinions, and are not regarded as authoritative by many legal scholars. They should be cited as one source, but it is better to move the first paragraph about their position to the later section devoted to the CRS, from the header section, which seems to treat it as more authoritative than it is accepted to be. Therefore I have undone the edit by Weazie to move it back down to a location that makes more sense.

Adding the quote from Vattel in which he explains that England does not use the rule of jus sanguinis, but jus soli, is not OR but a needed clarification.

The other changes are appropriate as summaries to introduce the sentences following, or to accurately represent the actual language of the statutes. Bracton (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It was previously agreed that the CRS's analysis is the mainstream one, and therefore was elevated to indicate there is no serious debate about the meaning of the clause. If you have actual citations desputing the reliability of the CRS, please share them.

The citations are in the following section "Academic Opinions". Rotunda, Volokh, Chin, and Takaji all indicate that "natural born" are only those born on U.S. soil, and do not include those made naturalized citizens at birth by naturalization statutes. There are no citizens at birth that are not either born on U.S. soil or naturalized by statute, so "natural born" are a proper subset of "citizen at birth". Only those born on incorporated U.S. territory, and not those born on unincorporated U.S. possessions, like Puerto Rico, are 'natural born", although they would become "natural born" if Puerto Rico was admitted as a state, as those born on Texas soil were when Texas was admitted. Bracton (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The article accurately notes when Vattel was cited, but it would be inaccurate to imply a discussion about a section that was never cited in the primary sources; WP:SYNTH. --Weazie (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The court opinion is not a primary source of the authorities it cites. Those authorities may be primary, provided they are not themselves commentaries that cite still other authorities. The court opinion is misleading because it cited Vattel out of context, which is provided two paragraphs later.Bracton (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source would be needed to support the contention that the court was citing Vattel out of context. --Weazie (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. We as editors can certainly examine the primary source document and present something that clearly shows the cite in the court opinion to another passage was taken out of context. If a contradictory statement two paragraphs later is not dispositive of the first statement being taken out of context, then what is? Bracton (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to submit my edits to a vote so we aren't just undoing one another. Bracton (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable with having the lead briefly summarize the various contemporary interpretations, rather than giving exclusive prominence to the CRS. Although the CRS's analysis is the mainstream one, I don't believe the issue is so obviously cut-and-dried as to summarily relegate all other views to the fringe. — Richwales 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Which can best be done by just moving the CRS paragraph down to the section on the CRS, as I did. However, I dispute that there is some kind of "mainstream" view on this issue. The closest thing we have to that is the USC, which does not define "natural born", but distinguishes two ways to become a citizen, by location of birth, which historical sources identify as "natural born", and by statute, which is done by statutes that are called naturalization statutes and codified in the section on naturalization. The distinction between “natural born” and “naturalized” is not based on WHEN one becomes a citizen, at birth or after birth, but on HOW, by location of birth or by statute or the application of a statute. A statute can make one a citizen at birth, but such a statute is a naturalization statute. The statutes that do that are even called naturalization statutes in the bodies of the acts. No statute can change the historical fact of where one was born. Bracton (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Birth in the United States creates natural-born citizenship; that is mainstream (and undisputed by all but fringe). The contemporary majority viewpoint is that birth to two citizen parents abroad also creates natural-born citizenship. Some, e.g., Professor Chin, have staked out a minority (but not fringe) position on a narrow exception to this particular point. The CRS accurately states these positions, and the lede is an accurate summary. While the CRS is not necessary to convey these positions, it is a convenient and useful vehicle to do so. But retaining a summary of these positions in the lede is more important than the particular source (if any) that is cited. --Weazie (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think it would be better not to cite the CRS by name in the lead, and certainly not cite the CRS and no one else, since this (IMO) makes the lead sound like it's promoting the CRS as a premier authoritative source entitled to more respect than other sources. I would prefer something saying that the bulk of scholarly opinion holds the view that "natural born citizen" is the same as "citizen at birth", but that minority views exist that would exclude non-US-born children of Americans, and possibly even US-born children of alien parents. The lead should not expend any effort expounding or justifying the basis for these views — it should merely acknowledge that they exist. And owing to the inherently controversial nature of anything that might be said on this topic, this material should include inline cites (something not normally required in a lead section). — Richwales 16:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the ("over")promotion of the CRS in the lede; the more important issue is that the lede be an accurate summary. (The CRS, however, is an adequate inline citation and need not be shunned.) The lede should state: the mainstream position is that birth within the United States is sufficient, and note a majority of scholars agree that birth to two citizen parents is also sufficient. (With respect to birth within the United States by noncitizen parents, nowhere in this article is that position seriously advocated, and therefore should not be in the lede.) --Weazie (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your parenthetical, but how I interpret it is clearly wrong. There is no doubt among scholars that a birth in the United States to noncitizen parents creates a natural-born citizen. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't more clear. Yes, that position is clearly wrong, and therefore should not be in lede (or anywhere else). --Weazie (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But it should not be ignored that while birth on the soil of a nation is "natural born", that is not sufficient to establish citizenship, because it can exclude those included within a foreign diplomatic team, or invaders, as set forth in Wong Kim Ark. Bracton (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It is OR to claim a majority of scholars (or anyone else) holds a position, especially one that we have to summarize for them. If you examine the positions of many of those scholars, they are taking the view that offspring born abroad to U.S. parents are citizens at birth, but not specifically "natural born" citizens. Rotunda has done the most thorough work on this issue, and he finds that those born of U.S. parents on foreign soil are only citizens at birth by statute, not by some natural law inherited from the English legal tradition. The sources we have for that are Coke and Blackstone, and they exclude those born of citizen parents on foreign soil. Bracton (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The lede is meant as a summary; it is not OR to summarize the article, especially when a source (the CRS) already has made a pronouncement on the weight of the opinions on the subject. --Weazie (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following substitute language for the lede:

A common view is that the "natural born" include those born on the incorporated territory of a country, but may not thereby be citizens at birth if they are born to a family that is part of a foreign diplomatic mission, or are foreign invaders. This is the rule of jus soli. Some, however, hold that it may also include those born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, by the rule of jus sanguinis, while others hold such are only U.S. citizens if naturalized by statute, perhaps made naturalized citizens at birth but not natural born citizens.

And move the CRS paragraph to the CRS section. Bracton (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems somehow too detailed and complex for the lead section. And readers not familiar with the topic may be confused by the last "while others" clause. Possibly something like this instead:

A common view is that "natural born" comprises all those who have held U.S. citizenship since birth—including, generally, those born in the United States, those born in U.S. territories or possessions, and those born to American parents in foreign countries. Some, however, argue that the term covers only those born in the United States proper, and that persons whose birth claims to U.S. citizenship depend on acts of Congress fall into some different category and are not "natural born" for purposes of presidential eligibility.

We don't need (and, IMO, don't want) to cover each and every small detail in the lead. A general, top-level description is perfectly appropriate here; the details can and should be covered in the rest of the article. — Richwales 16:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility (even more succinct than my proposal above):

A common view is that "natural born" comprises all those who, by law, are considered to have held U.S. citizenship since birth. Some, however, argue that persons born to American parents outside the United States may not be "natural born" for purposes of presidential eligibility, since their birth claims to U.S. citizenship depend on acts of Congress and are not guaranteed under the Constitution.

Again, I believe we should be as "short and sweet" as reasonably possible in the lead section, and relegate the detailed provisos and exceptions to the main text of the article. — Richwales 17:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with "short and sweet" for the lede. My only concern is the word "common" -- we should not be afraid to say "majority" or "prevailing" or some other indicator of what is not up for debate, especially with a reliable source that says that. --Weazie (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would be OK with me if "a common view" were replaced by "the prevailing view". And I would also favour including at least one reliable source for each of the two sentences in my proposal — even though this will be in the lead section, the material is clearly likely to be challenged, so sources are called for. — Richwales 20:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not the "prevailing view", only a common misunderstanding. The prevailing view is that found in the Wong Kim Ark and Ankeny court decisions, which make it clear that "natural born citizen" means only born on U.S. soil, unless part of a family of foreign diplomats or invaders. So I propose this

A common view is that "natural born" comprises all those who, by law, hold U.S. citizenship since birth. Court cases, however, indicate that those born to U.S. citizen parents outside the United States are not "natural born" for purposes of presidential eligibility, since their claims to U.S. citizenship depend on acts of Congress that make them "naturalized" at birth.

Bracton (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Which part of Ankeny are you referring to? Perhaps the part where this court said that "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents"? Or did you mean some other part of this decision (which, in any event, is a mid-level state appeals court ruling, and thus could not be said to "make it clear" what something in the United States Constitution says, even if they had ruled completely differently than they did)? — Richwales 15:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The sufficiency of birth in the United States (excepting two minor circumstances) for natural-born citizenship is the prevailing view. (The CRS says as much.) And there are no court cases stating that those born outside the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are not natural-born citizens. --Weazie (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I should probably clarify what I wrote earlier — decisions that state "people born in the US are natural-born citizens" do not necessarily also mean that "people not born in the US are not natural-born citizens". Stated another way, "A implies B" is not equivalent to "not-A implies not-B". In any event, the Ankeny court also said that "We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad.... [W]e note that nothing in our opinion today should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the only way one can receive natural born citizen status." Similar things can be said about Wong Kim Ark — and in any event, anything in Wong Kim Ark about natural born citizenship as opposed to any other sort of citizenship at birth would at best be obiter dicta, since Wong wasn't trying to run for President or Vice-President. — Richwales 21:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The nonimplication of those statements is correct, but that only means that one must look elsewhere for pre-1787 evidence that "natural born citizen" includes those born abroad of citizen parents in England or its colonies. I find no such evidence, and indeed, evidence to the contrary. At this time and for the last 200 years there is no statute generally recognizing those born abroad of citizen parents to be citizens, natural born or otherwise. There are some statutes recognizing some of them under some circumstances, and recognizing those natural born in certain unincorporated territories as citizens at birth, but those are all naturalization statutes, and none of them also proclaim them natural born U.S. citizens. A sound attention to etymological analysis must conclude that while all natural born citizens are also citizens at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born. Some are naturalized. The statutes themselves, or lack thereof, refute the position that all those born abroad to U.S. citizens are citizens, whether at birth, natural born, or both, is the "prevailing view". It is not. Bracton (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to exposition in this article of the background of the phrase "natural born citizen", as long as it is firmly grounded in reliable sources and avoids synthesis or other forms of original research. A "conclusion" drawn from a "sound attention to etymological analysis" is likely to be tainted by OR/SYNTH and would, therefore, not be appropriate here. — Richwales 15:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

And perhaps I should add, for clarification, that (IMO) it might be OK in principle to mention that English translations of De Vattel's Le droit des gens (under the title The Law of Nations) gave a definition of the expression "natural born citizens". However, it would not be OK to say that this is what the phrase means in the Constitution, or even that De Vattel's work influenced the Founding Fathers' choice of this phrase, unless reliable sources can be cited to establish such a connection. Additionally (and crucially IMO), it would also not be OK simply to mention that De Vattel defined "natural born citizens" in such a way as to leave it to the reader to conclude that there evidently must be a connection with the Constitution's use of the phrase (but without actually supplying a suitable reliable source making such a connection). — Richwales 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Obama article probation

In my opinion, the community-imposed article probation on "pages related to Barack Obama (broadly construed)" applies to this article. See WP:GS/BO. Accordingly, I've added the {{Community article probation}} template to the top of this talk page. — Richwales 02:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally biased in favor of Obama?

This article is totally biased in favor of Obama, and should be deleted en toto as wholly unreliable. Sources are 'cherry-picked', and no academic challenge is addresses to the so-called academic opinions cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.145.208 (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources discussing different aspects or views on the subject, you are of course welcome to add such material. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia policy insists on "no original research" (which rules out including a Wikipedian's own personal analysis or commentary). — Richwales 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with unsigned the article section about Obama is politically weighted heavily to support his eligibility and editors do camp here to protect that viewpoint, and that does make that section unreliable for the reader. However, I don't agree with deleting the article or the section, it needs to be reworked by non-POV pushing editors and the facts made plain. The Obama section is very misleading as the facts do not support one conclusion, so both sides of the controversy should be included if we are to have a non-POV article. Failing that, the section should be pared down to just reflect the facts and remove the opinions since the opinions can only be included here if both sides of a controversy are covered, and clearly this is not the case here. Wikipedia is not supposed to be carrying water for political candidates. Britcom 08:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh give me a break. Of course its weighted to support his eligibility as is McCains. Why...because it IS DUE WEIGHT. It is actually a fringe theory that either of the two are not citizens.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As has been said before, if you can find material in reliable sources discussing or advocating opposing viewpoints, then it should certainly be possible to expand the section on contemporary interpretations to include such material. But it needs to be from reliable sources; and in order to steer clear of the sin of "original research", it needs to be from secondary sources (i.e., we need to report what recognized experts have said about the subject, rather than going directly to the Constitution or court cases and providing our own analysis of what these texts say or mean). There is, of course, some risk here of dismissing a source as constituting an unreliable fringe view because it advocates a minority position, but I believe the policies in place for evaluating the reliability of sources should suffice to handle this problem. — Richwales 18:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. For example, there is a minor (but legitimate) disagreement concerning McCain's eligibility, and this article accurately reflects that. If you look at the revision history, the IP OP (70.15.145.208) made a series of hit-and-run edits that failed WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. (and were quickly reverted). Also: Vague accusations of article-camping are unproductive. --Weazie (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article on Obama conspiracy theories where both sides are expressed according to the due weight each side has. This article is on the clause itself and thus should not take into account the birthers attempts at redefining the phrase which began in 2008. The idea that 'natural born citizen' meant some third kind of citizenship didn't really emerge until then, and if you want to do your own OR (which couldn't be included in the article but you are still free to do it) then note that in 'every' USSC ruling where the phrase is mentioned it is used as synonymous with "citizen at birth" or "born a citizen". There was some confusion in the 19th century about whether citizen parents were required to be a citizen from birth, and some of those cases reflect that confusion, but in each case they were explicitly discussing whether someone was entitled to citizenship from birth and not using it to refer to some third kind of citizenship that only applies to Presidential eligibility. Mystylplx (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, See...here's the problem. Both sides do not need to be balanced. That is not Wikipedia policy. Raising on side to the level of the other side is not balance. It is elevating opinion to the level of fact. And that is obscene.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please... spare me your excuses gentleman. The opinions expressed above are (by and large) obvious in their political motivation (note that political motivation need not be partisan) to tamp down alternate views of the subject phrase by notable persons or media coverage of the fallout of the establishment's policy on the subject. For example the repeated (and unrestrained) use of derogatory and denunciative terms like "birther" betrays one's inclination to attack the character of those persons who have raised the notability of the issue in society; and also editors here who have, or might advocate including the facts surrounding the nature of the eligibility vetting controversy here in the article. Such attacks are a form of politically motivated gangsterism designed to keep the article's "spin doctored" content intact by casting aspersion upon those editors and other persons who are obviously not "in the tank" with the establishment spin doctors. Our purpose here at Wikipedia is to present the facts about the entire subject in an understandable manner to the reader. Our purpose is not to cherry-pick the facts and sources that only support one view (ostensibly the political establishment view) of the facts and expunge the article of information that alternate schools of thought on the subject exist in various sectors of society at large. Britcom 10:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"Birther" is a term often used by reliable sources and birthers themselves. Your repeated, speculative attacks on others' motivations is unhelpful. You, again, have failed to supply any facts cited in a reliable source, in a manner consistent with wikipedia's policies, that ought to be included in this article about the natural-born-citizen clause . --Weazie (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This section isn't a discussion about an addition to the article, its about the NPOV of the Obama section, which unsigned raised, and I agree is a valid point. Weazie is trying to justify insulting people here because others do it to. Do I really have to explain why that is not a valid argument? Britcom 20:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you have specific criticisms of the Obama section, please elaborate and cite the relevant wikipedia policies. Similarly, if you have specific material that ought be included in that section, please source it (again, in accordance with wikipedia policies). (And that you are bothered that "birther" has become a commonly used term -- often by those who self-identify as one -- is not relevant to this article.) --Weazie (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at the article, and found that the term birther does not appear in the article body. That term appears in the titles of three items cited as supporting sources. Out of curiosity, I did some digging trying to identify the source of the term. I don't know if she got it right, but Leslie Savan (the author of Leslie Savan (2005), Slam dunks and no-brainers: language in your life, the media, business, politics, and, like, whatever) wrote in a November 18, 2009 article in the New York Times Magazine (see ON LANGUAGE : From Simple Noun to Handy Partisan Put-Down) that the term seemed to have been coined about a year earlier, separately, by the conservative bloggers Ed Morrissey and Steve Gilbert. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "b*rther belongs in the same category of use as the term "n*gger". It is a patently offensive term which may occasionally be used by those within its definition as a badge of honor, but it is not acceptable for use by those outside the group since their intent is always seen as insulting and negative toward those they direct it at. (Note: that this discussion of the term became necessary when an editor used the term in this thread, and was warned about it's offensiveness. It is not intended to be a discussion about the use of the term in the article.) Britcom 13:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you can actually make this comment and not be embarrassed by the content is proof enough that you are unable to edit this, and any other article related to race or politics, period. If you are really unable to distinguish the difference between someone's race and fringe conspiracy theories, nobody should take any concerns you have on any of these articles seriously. This is not only based on POV concerns, but competence issues. Dave Dial (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dave Dial's comment completely. Britcom is talking offensive, fringe crap. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Dave Dial and HiLo48 are engaging in a counter productive activity called "shooting the messenger". They're attempting to denounce and round up opposition toward me because they don't like the fact that I warned an editor that he should not use derogatory and offensive names to describe people (including other editors) here in the talk page. They are proving my (and the unsigned poster of this section) point about the hostile atmosphere to including alternate viewpoints here on this page. Britcom 09:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have material which you believe satisfies Wikipedia's content/sourcing policies and merits inclusion in the article, please propose it here so it can be discussed. If there are disagreements over whether a given piece of information is usable or not, there are dispute resolution procedures in place which should allow questions of this sort to be resolved. — Richwales 18:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So now Richwales wants to take the article to dispute resolution rather than fix it? NPOV and article camping aren't disputes, they are violations of the rules, and that is why I am commenting here, to agree with the poster of this section, the article is politically slanted and censored. Britcom 20:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And the article on the Moon is totally biased, slanted, and censored against those who believe it is made of green cheese. That probably won't be changed to reflect marginal beliefs completely unsupported by reliable sources either. I hear WordPress.com has space available, though. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And Trolling is also a violation of the rules, Fat&Happy. Would you like to be reported for that? Britcom 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not say (or imply) that I want to "take the article to dispute resolution rather than fix it". As I've repeatedly said, if you have something specific which you believe belongs in the article, you are welcome to tell us about it (along with your sources). If you believe others are being unreasonable in their misinterpretation of WP:RS, you can bring up the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Similarly, if you believe others are pushing a POV and censoring contrary views, you can go to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. You can even open an Articles for Deletion discussion if you think the article is hopeless — though you're unlikely to get any support for that unless you've first tried to improve it by putting forward specific changes. And if you think one or more of us are acting improperly as editors, you can open a user conduct RFC or ask the Arbitration Committee to get involved. But simply saying "the article is politically slanted and censored" is not going to accomplish anything — you need to propose concrete changes, and then pursue the matter through the established channels if you believe your suggestions are being ignored or suppressed without valid cause. — Richwales 22:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We'll get to all that soon enough. For the moment those responsible are busy undoing themselves; and as Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Britcom 22:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I would really prefer just to see some new candidate material (with usable sources). I really am completely open to having this article mention alternative opinions on what the natural-born-citizen clause means — as long as the material comes from reliable sources, does not constitute original research or synthesis, and is treated in a manner consistent with the NPOV policy. As for the posturing and accusations, please either take them to the appropriate noticeboards, or else drop them; they have no place on an article's talk page. — Richwales 23:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Richwales here, but I see a problem in that sources that should be considered reliable secondary sources are routinely dismissed as not simply because they are not part of the liberal establishment media realm. There are many old and well respected non-liberal media sources (e.g. WND and The Economist) but becasue they report on events and issues from a "non-liberal" perspective they are dismissed and derided by editors here on Wikipedia as unreliable. While new and questionable media sources are treated seriously as "reliable". (e.g. Snopes and Justia). So, by stacking the deck in favor of the establishment sources, noteworthy alternative issue positions will not be includable here on Wikipedia articles by default. So, does anyone have a remedy for that problem? Britcom 11:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, FFS, bring on November 7, then all this bullshit will be gone forever. HiLo48 (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Britcom has brought up a reasonable question. Per WP:QS, sources "with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest ... expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion" are deemed to be "questionable sources" and "unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties". I know WorldNetDaily has repeatedly been rejected as a reliable source (on many/most topics, not solely Obama's presidential eligibility). I was not aware of The Economist being broadly considered as questionable in this same way; can you cite an example where material from The Economist (or the publication as a whole) has been rejected on reliable-source grounds? In any case, I believe the appropriate way to handle such situations would be to bring them up at WP:RSN (the Reliable Sources Noticeboard) — citing a specific piece of material (e.g., ask if this particular statement from XYZ is suitable for use in this particular way — don't just ask the general question "is XYZ a reliable source, and if not, why not?") — and let the discussion proceed. Remember, too, that there may be a big difference between saying "this-and-that" and "such-and-so said this-and-that"; material might not be usable as an objective statement of fact, but it may be usable as a description of what a specific person or organization thinks. — Richwales 15:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In the Minor section, ante, there was a brief discussion about an Economist article about the Georgia ballot challenge. As explained in May, the Economist has been cited to discuss the Georgia ballot challenge. --Weazie (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Minor discussion has since been archived. --Weazie (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Dating the translation of Vattel

The article says: "An English-language translation of Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise The Law of Nations..." That's OK, but it's important for clarifying the argument of those who want to make Vattel the controlling authority on the meaning of "natural born citizen" that the English language translation of Vattel that appears in the article is from 1797 and that the 1787 First American Edition of Vattel (when the Federal Convention met) and those before it said something different: "The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens." There is no mention of "natural-born citizen."

One way to deal with this is to simply change the article to say "A 1797 English-language translation..." Need this be sourced? It's easy enough to tie the translation to 1797. Google Books has the 1797 edition online. Sourcing the earlier translation online is a more difficult problem since we're now dealing with rare books.Kevin (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You make a good point. The article, however, refers to de Vattel being quoted in Supreme Court decisions. So it may be straying into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to state which edition of de Vattel was being quoted (and the exact language of the translation). If there's a WP:RS that covers all this, please include it. --Weazie (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The article cites Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1857). in support of its assertion about the quote. What that cited source says is:

Thus Vattel, in the preliminary chapter to his Treatise on the Law of Nations, says:

[..incidental material elided..]

By this same writer it is also said:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. [...]"

As I read this, it does not say that the quote at issue was taken from Treatise on the Law of Nations, it says that Vattel said that somewhere not specified. The text quoted in the cited source is also missing a couple of commas which are present in the text in §212 on p. 101 of the google books source linked above, and that google book source says "thofe", instead of "those". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Justice Daniel makes it clear he is quoting Vattel from Law of Nations. For those who follow why the specific edition is important to a certain fringe argument, Kevin is correct that it appears that Justice Daniel is quoting the post-Convention edition. Unfortunately, I think it is straying into WP:SYNTH to explain this difference without a WP:RS (as well as the legal weight of Justice Daniel's separate opinion in a case not directly about the natural-born-citizen clause). --Weazie (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Birther" as a pejorative / derogatory / offensive term?

I dispute the claim that the word "birther" is offensive and inappropriate when used by non-"birthers". There is currently nothing in the article on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories (the page to which Birther currently redirects) which makes any such claim or provides any reliable source supporting such a claim. If this claim is in fact verifiable through reliable (or even halfway-arguably-reliable) sources, I believe the details ought to be added at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Until then, my reading of the material in that article leads me to conclude that the word is acceptable in ordinary discourse. Comments? — Richwales 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem, and any claim that "birther" should not be used in an article or on a talk page should be ignored because it is not possible to satisfy all the people all of the time. If someone wants to pursue a claim that uncivil language is being used, they should attempt a justification at an appropriate noticeboard. Just like reliable sources, Wikipedia calls creationists "creationists", and birthers "birthers", and there is no point debating the issue on this page (any such debate should be at an appropriate noticeboard). Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Richwales - was this the same editor who claimed that birther was as offensive as nigger? As soon as I saw that claim I felt compelled to abandon any feelings of good faith. Birther is a perfectly good, non-offensive word. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat the explanation I gave since you asked the question in two places, Rich. Of course it is a perjorative term. People in the Tea Party don't call themselves "teabaggers". Nor do I suspect that those who discount the President's birth certificate prefer to be called "birthers". Perhaps "skeptic" or "patriot", but I would highly doubt they would adopt the term "birther", since it isn't really an explanation of their ideas or motives. As to the idea that it is as offensive as the N-word, no, not even close. But it is clearly a pejorative label. -- Avanu (talk) 06:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, just read a bit more of the debate above. If you look over the sources, the term "birther" is most often used by people who side with the idea that Obama is a US natural born citizen. It is used to describe people who they perceive as deluded or misguided, or typically in the context of that sentiment. Take a look at the definition given at the Online Slang Dictionary. It states that the belief is "against evidence". The Macmillan Open Dictionary defines it as "opponents of US President Barack Obama", which seems to indicate it has nothing to do with facts, simply an opposition to a particular man. The Urban dictionary defines a "birther" as a "natural-born racist, natural-born moron, and a natural-born asshole". I could go on proving this via news article citations and more, but I would hope that you have the sufficient capacity to check that on your own. It is a label, and it is commonly known, but it is no compliment to call someone a "birther". -- Avanu (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "birther" does not appear in this article. (It does appear in some of the sources cited by the article.) A discussion about the term on this talk page appears to violate WP:TALK. --Weazie ([[User talk:Weazie|talk]) 07:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a loaded phrase and has no place in an encyclopedia used as a common term.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Weazie, it is perfectly reasonable for Richwales to ask if a certain term is worthwhile for use in the article content. And I agree with Amadscientist that it is a loaded term. However, NPOV might dictate that we at least give some context and show it in the article somewhere, just not necessarily in Wikipedia's voice. -- Avanu (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The word isn't used in this article, and no one is suggesting that it be used. Done and done. --Weazie (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The objection I made about the use of the epithet in this talk page in the above section can be read here: [5] and here: [6] Britcom 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, the talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. WP:DR governs a dispute with another editor; "Focus on article content, not on editor conduct." Thanks. --Weazie (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Weazie, how about you do the same. You need to stop haranguing each comment you dislike with a comment that it somehow violates WP:TALK. -- Avanu (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

While my original question (raised both here and at Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories) admittedly straddled the line, I was in fact making a good-faith attempt to determine whether labelling of the term "birther" as offensive could be substantiated through reliable sources — a claim which, if verifiable, could have contributed to the improvement, not only of the citizenship conspiracy theories article, but possibly also of this article, as well as Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation. Accordingly, I believed (and still believe) that it was appropriate (and not a violation of WP:TALK) to discuss the matter here.

At this point, I believe it can safely be said that no usable evidence exists for the claim — given that only one newsworthy individual (Donald Trump) has been identified as a questioner of Obama's presidential eligibility who objects to the term — and, therefore, that there is no reason for Wikipedia to caution readers in any general way regarding possible inappropriateness of the word "birther".

As for whether I, or any other editor, should stop saying "birther" in talk page discussions: Since we haven't been able to substantiate the claim made regarding the term, I see no reason to avoid using it here or elsewhere as an ordinary, non-charged expression. In particular, I don't believe referring to third parties as "birthers", or to their writings as "birther blogs", comes even close to the standard set in last February's "Civility Enforcement" ArbCom case (WP:ARBCIV). I am content to let this particular discussion, on this talk page and the other talk page, end here — and hopefully it will not need to proceed further in any other forum — though, admittedly, that decision is probably not within my control. — Richwales 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I took your original query to be a good faith effort to improve the article (or, perhaps more accurately, an effort to improve the related Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article) -- and thus not a violation of WP:TALK. I agree that any discussion on this topic (both here and at the related article's talk page) can be closed. --Weazie (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Richwales, hasn't reached a consensus for his supposition that the term "B*rther" is not offensive and abusive, especially when directed at other editors here on this talk page. On the contrary, consensus seems to me to be that it IS offensive and should not be used here. His supposition to the contrary ignores entirely the opinions and feelings of those who have stated here that they find this term offensive. Why bother to ask the question if one is going to ignore what the editors here say? Additionally, this is not a case of mere discussion about the definition of a word (we all know what it means), it is a discussion about the offensiveness of a word used as an epithet designed to make certain editors feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, and to drive them away from this article. Frankly I find this attempt at justification of the use of a hateful, angry term such as this to be disturbing. Such words have no place in a civil and professional discussion. Britcom 13:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've just added nothing to the discussion. You haven't explained WHY it's offensive, especially for those who just want a simple word to describe such people and don't intend offence, and you haven't proposed an alternative for the same peole. Please do. HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I will confirm that I have used the word "birther" numerous times, on this and other article talk pages, when discussing third persons and their writings. I have not, as far as I'm aware, used the word "birther" as a direct reference either to Britcom or any other editor on this or other talk pages. I'm going to have to conclude that Britcom is objecting because he himself is skeptical of Obama's presidential eligibility, and when I refer to such people in the third person as "birthers", he is taking this as a personal insult.

I'm in a bit of a quandary here. As we just spent several days determining, there doesn't appear to be any general objection to the term "birther" on the part of skeptics of Obama's presidential eligibility; only one newsworthy person mentioned in a reliable source (Donald Trump) has stated such a view. So, in terms of the Wikipedia standards for what can or can't be said in a Wikipedia article, it seems clear that it's OK to say "birther" if our sources say "birther", and we can't brand this term as offensive in an article except to report that Donald Trump has objected to its use.

As for what can / should / can't / shouldn't be said in a talk page: While I have no desire to go intentionally and gratuitously offending anyone here, chaos would result if any one editor were to have veto power over the use, in discussions, of some generally accepted term solely because he/she considers it to be offensive — especially if there is no reliable evidence substantiating a claim that the term in question is generally or widely branded as offensive.

So, intending no disrespect to Britcom personally, I still believe it is within Wikipedia's civility policies to use the term "birther" in talk page discussions — as long as it is not being specifically directed at another editor in a disparaging manner (e.g., we shouldn't say "you are a birther", or "you and other birthers like you", but it's OK to say "birthers claim such-and-so", or "reliable, non-birther-blog sources").

If Britcom (or any other editor) disagrees with this and still feels that any use of the word "birther" by editors on this talk page is uncivil and/or a personal attack, I would recommend he consider opening a Request for Comment on User Conduct (at WP:RFC/U). I strongly believe my position in this matter is appropriate and in keeping with Wikipedia policies, and that an RFC/U would be over the top and would quickly be dismissed, but I am certainly willing to retract my view in response to a community consensus. — Richwales 17:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Richwales is hereabove attempting to "Attack the messenger". He is using the logical fallacy of Ad Hominem attack in an effort to justify his use of offensive language here. He states in part: "...Britcom is objecting because he himself is skeptical of Obama's presidential eligibility", by which he attempts to question my motivations for cautioning him about using offensive labels here on Wikipedia. Need I remind anyone that I also have edited John McCain's section in this article? The fact that RichWales has employed the Ad Hominem attack against me shows that his argument for allowing his use of offensive labels is logically and ethically bankrupt, so he has resorted to lashing out at me and thereby confirmed again what Unsigned pointed out in the section above, a NPOV bias exists here in this article, and that some editors here attempt to drive away other editors by maintaining a hostile atmosphere toward those they have identified as having an alternative viewpoint. The fact that we are even having this conversation speaks volumes about the lengths that some editors will go through to slant an article to fit their political agenda. If they can't dismiss an editor's alternative view, they will resort to insults, intimidation, and slander in order to protect an article they have camped on from other editors. Such behavior is not in keeping with the best spirit of Wikipedia. Britcom 13:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement regarding general principles. I've brought up (over there) the disagreement we've been having here, as a possible case study (look here). Please note that this other page is not a place to report alleged violations of user conduct — if one editor believes another is behaving unacceptably, such an accusation belongs at a place specifically devoted to handling user conduct disputes, such as WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. — Richwales 16:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears Richwales is looking for sympathy by employing dramatics. He has attempted to project his own biased POV onto other editors by doubling down on the Ad Hominim attack and making slanderous accusations against me in the other forum he referenced above. Britcom 03:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Enough of this. If (as seems clear) you are convinced I am acting in an uncivil manner, take your complaint against me to WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. Please note, BTW, that the RFC/U rules require at least two editors to have attempted to resolve an issue with the person being reported. And if you believe there is a general effort here to impose a biased viewpoint on this and related articles, take this matter to WP:NPOVN. But nothing constructive is going to result from beating these issues to death on this (or any other) article's talk page. Take your grievances to the proper forums — or else drop them now. — Richwales 05:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Richwales created this section as a discussion about my warning to him about using a derogatory label to describe people, here on this talk page. He didn't like what I had to say about it, so then he publicized this discussion on another board, again insulting me in the process and falsely characterizing me over there, then he didn't like what I had to say about that behavior. Now he demands that I be silent while he berates me still further. If one goes back and looks at the record, one can see that I made one brief warning to Richwales and then I dropped the subject. Richwales continues to make the subject word, and me, a subject of discussion on this page. He seems a bit frustrated that he didn't get the reaction he seems to have hoped for. Britcom 15:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hassan Case

To me, the appearance of the Hassan case is awkward in context. Normally we understand "eligibility challenge" (the section where Hassan appears) as a challenge to someone's eligibility. Hassan's eligibility as a natural born citizen isn't being challenged; he himself says that he is not. What is being challenged by Hassan is the natural born citizenship requirement itself. I agree that the Hassan case should be included, but in a different context, perhaps in its own section. Kevin (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Kevin. Britcom 13:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Weazie (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Obama Cases

The article says: "Most of the cases have been dismissed because of the plaintiff's lack of standing; however, three courts have given guidance on the question."

Main article: Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation

covers this in detail, and I wouldn't want to clutter this article repeating cases. That said, the number "three" isn't right. The correct number is at least six: Ankeny, Purpura, Allen, Tisdale, Ankeny and Voeltz. Looking for suggestions on how to improve the wording. How about: " several courts have given guidance on the question including:" With that change, the article doesn't become inaccurate every time a new case is decided. Kevin (talk) 17:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable change to me. Mystylplx (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Weazie (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s,

It should be noted below the paragraph about the Congressional Research Service Memorandum that the researchers were mistaken about the common use and meaning of the phrase "Natural born subject" etc. The common meaning of "natural born subject" in England in the 1700's did not mean "subject at birth" or "subject by birth". It simply meant a subject of the crown, as opposed to a foreigner.

From "The London magazine; or, Gentleman's monthly intelligencer, Volume 32 (1763) [7]

...all such foreign protestants as well officers as soldiers who have served or shall hereafter serve in the royal American regiment or as engineers in America for the space of two years and shall take and subscribe the oaths &c shall be deemed his majesty's natural born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents and purposes ..."(Page 239)

...That no person who shall become a natural born subject of this kingdom by virtue of this act shall be thereby enabled to be of the privy council or a member of either houle of parliament, or capable of taking or enjoying any office or place of trust within the kingdoms of Great Britain or Ireland either civil or military or any grant from the crown to himself or to any other in trust for him of any land tenements or hereditaments within the said kingdoms. (Page 240)

...but it is certain that by this act a foreigner may in two years become a natural born subject of this kingdom whereas by the said act of 13 Gco 2 a foreigner must live seven years in America without having ever been absent from thence above two months at a time before he can become a natural born subject of this kingdom.(Pg 241)

Note that a "natural born subject" could be someone who was naturalized by statute or could be a person born in the country.

Since I don't know what I'm doing concerning editing Wikipedia pages, I wanted to leave it to someone else to do it correctly. 70.112.111.16 (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Jeanette

For you to suggest that the CRS got it wrong would violate wikipedia's policy against original research. Please find a reliable source that support the edits you are suggesting. --Weazie (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The cited source is, arguably, a reliable secondary source which clearly uses the expression "natural born subject" as including foreigners who acquired the status of subjects (what we would refer to as naturalization). Note that it really is a secondary source (it's not Hansard — rather, it's a third-party publication reporting what Parliament did).

Exactly what should be done with this source is unclear (at least, to me, right now). It might indicate that the expression "natural born" had a broader application than other sources have suggested. Or it could simply be an error on the writer's part, reflecting nothing more than his own misunderstanding of the terminology. By itself, it doesn't clearly say this is what "natural born" means and all other sources have it wrong — much more likely that this source has it wrong and all other sources say something else. — Richwales 05:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When I read the London magazine article, I get the impression that "natural-born subject" actually means something different, but as a recruiting incentive, people who perform certain military service will be treated as if they were "natural-born subject" for most, but not all, purposes. It reminds me of the New York State motor vehicle law as it existed in the 1980s. The New York legislature wanted to exempt fire trucks from certain weight limits, so they declared that for purposes of a certain title in the motor vehicle law, fire trucks were not motor vehicles. This illustrates that laws can adopt definitions, for purpose of a particular section of law, that is wildly different from the public's ordinary understanding of words. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the stuff I have found, a "natural born subject" is anyone who was a subject of the crown whether born there of parents who were subjects or naturalized by statute.

Here's more ...

1708 An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants. WHEREAS the Increase of People is a Means of advancing the Wealth and Strength of a Nation and whereas many Strangers of the Protestant or reformed Religion out of a due Consideration of the happy Constitution of the Government of this Realm would be induced to transport themselves and their Estates into this Kingdom if they might be made Partakers of the Advantages and Privileges which the natural born Subjects thereof do enjoy, Be it enacted &e All Persons taking the Oaths and making and subscribing the Declaration appointed by 6 Annae c 23 shall be deemed natural born Subjects. No Person to have the Benefit of this Act unless he have received the Sacrament. Pg 339 1708 [8]

8888888888888888888888888888888888

1787 A compendious digest of the statute law, comprising the substance and effect of all the public acts of Parliament in force, ...

Thomas Walter Williams - 1787

PG 457 - Chapter title- Naturalization.

By 13 Geo 2 c 3 foreign seamen serving on board men of war cr merchant ships for two years during time of war on proclamalation shall be deemed natural born subjects. No such person shall be enabled to be of the privy council.

By z Geo 3 c 25 foreign protestants serving in the royal American regiment or as engineers in America for the space of two ears and qualifying themselves shall be deemed natural born subjects but incapable of being of the privy council .

[9]

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

An newer reference

The Statutes, Volume 9 [10]

An Act to remove Doubts as to the Rights of the Africans in Sierra Leone 20th August 1853 Preamble 1 All liberated Africans domiciled or resident or who hereafter may be domiciled or resident in the colony of Sierra Leone or its dependencies shall be deemed to be and do have been for all purposes as from the date of their being brought into or of their arrival in the said colony natural born subjects of her Majesty and to be and to have been capable of taking holding conveying devising and ...

888888888888888888888888888888888888

Contemporary

In the mid-19th century ‘aliens’ (non-Britons) were free to enter and live in the Queen’s dominions, which included New Zealand, but their property rights were restricted. French and German settlers complained, and from 1844, aliens could become ‘natural born subjects of Her Majesty [Queen Victoria]’ in New Zealand through proclamations by the governor that were later confirmed by ordinances. [11] 70.112.111.16 (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Jeanette

Major Revison Needed

Major Revision Needed

This would be a good article if it weren’t so one-sided. Four facts testify of strongly polarized opinion (two sides), and the second side is well above “Fringe” on the dispute thermometer:

• “Throughout U.S. history, some historians, commentators, pubic officials, State courts and Federal judges have expressed the opinion that all children born on U.S. soil (except the children of foreign ambassadors and alien enemies) are natural born citizens, regardless of their parents' citizenship. To this day,” states Stephen Tonchen, author of a legal-oriented websiteon the subject (showing far more research than this article), “the Supreme Court has consistently rejected this viewpoint.” (bold added)
• “More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax the restriction,” states this natural-born clause article. NONE have been successful
• Over 176 lawsuits have challenged Barack Obama's eligibility. Nearly all were dismissed for technical reasons like “standing”—NOT THE MERITS of the argument! Though the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motions without comment in both, two cases are still open.
• The 2010 deletion discussion for this article demonstrates controversy and “This article has been placed on article probation.”

Tb stated on the Natural law talk page:

Where there is scholarly dispute, however ill informed the dispute, Wikipedia is not the place to advance the correct interpretation, but instead the place to summarize what the dispute is.... Here, you must put aside your own convictions, and your urge to cite primary sources, and instead, try to represent what others--however ill-informed--are already saying. Tb (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (emphasis added)

Though well researched in many respects, this article needs to acknowledge dispute and show the other half . . . if it is to be NPOV! It needs to show the difference in natural and statutory law and the ramifications on natural born and "native born."

“The devil is in the details”

Is this exaggeration? Russia’s “Birther” Pravda news outlet called out the US press for “deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet." It labeled the Obama eligibility issue [http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/ex-communist-nations-expose-obama-fraud/ "the largest scandal in American history!"]. Bill and Hillary’s original opinion mirrors that of other LEGAL people and organizations—the so called “wacko” half of the dispute, including the U.S. State Department page 9), which warned, “...the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes” (bold added). So now we know the “Fringe” label for this issue is no more than another fraud-admitting Alinsky.

Stephen Tonchen’s website follows up:

Since President Obama was a foreign citizen (in addition to being a U.S. citizen) at birth, his "natural born citizen" status is in doubt (07). This doubt is not based on the imaginings of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists on the lunatic fringe of society. This doubt comes from what the Supreme Court has said, as well as a variety of other historical and legal sources....” (bold added)

This second POV, which seeks and believes in original understanding of the founders, would on the other hand, accuse this one-sided, but otherwise good, article of "Constitutional heresy in Wikipedia" (potentially Titanic Wikipedia’s iceberg scandal in a deep fog of intense political debate where the mountainous hidden portion of the cold blue iceberg tears and sinks even a very large ship in the dead of night.

When the difference between statutory and natural law are clearly understood, when the Supreme Court has overruled prior case law with Minor v. Happersett (1875) by indirectly defining “natural born citizen;” Professor Herb Titus, Mario Apuzzo, Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, Larry Klayman, Liberty Legal Foundation (among others) represent more closely what the Supreme Court has said. Indeed, the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, which uses these as examples of "fringe," reflects badly on Wikipedia for all reasons above. “Fringe” is the easy excuse to leave this article non-NPOV and leave the “conspiracy theories” article flirting with Alinsky fraud!

Larry Klayman was the founder of Judicial Watch, a former US prosecutor for the US Dept of Justice, on the legal team that broke up AT&T, and a US Senate Candidate from Florida. Professor Titus was a Vice-Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, a former trial attorney for the US Dept of Justice, a regional director for the A.C.L.U., admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court, and was the founding dean of the College of Law and Government at Regent University. He taught constitutional law for nearly 30 years. All are scholarly legal people or groups, most of whom have filed lawsuits against, and all have challenged, Barack Obama’s natural-born status.

The latter three quarters of this article needs a rewrite to show dispute; I don’t have the time. So I will now more fully show the second view and assume that others will honestly tackle the challenge.

First, here’s the basic undisputed premise: Our U.S. Constitution is built on a foundation of common law, which is built on a foundation of classical natural law affirms Robert Lowry Clinton.

Second, the Supreme Court said the same in Minor v. Happersett (1875), according to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. “The Court looked to the ‘common-law’ for definitions of who were U.S. citizens.” He says Minor “confirmed the American common law definition of a ‘natural born Citizen’ which is a child born in a country to parents who were ‘citizens’ of the country when the child was born.” Liberty Legal Foundation says the same and emphasizes, “the Minor Court's definition of natural born citizen is precedent, binding upon all courts in this country.”

Although it is original research, which cannot be used in this article, the citizenship of tribal indigenous Americans (Indians) demonstrates the principles. As natural born citizens of their individual tribal nations, Indians were neither American citizens by nature (natural law) nor by statute (Constitution or later Fourteenth Amendment). Though native born on American soil, they were not “native-born” American citizens until a statue was passed in 1924, which naturalized them. All were then “native-born” American citizens, yet statutory law had to convey even further rights because these were not natural born citizens. However, the children later born to these new Indian citizens were natural born American citizens (without statutory law) because by nature (natural birthplace, as in native born, and natural birthright from both citizen parents) they became citizens at birth. Indeed, most living Americans are natural born citizens because, by law of nature, not statute or constitution, they received their birth rights.

Professor Titus, recently explained natural born on two short YouTube video clips from his standpoint: Video 1, Video 2. He also stated a more exact version while correcting newscaster Bret Baier(Fox News).

“Indeed,” states Mario Apuzzo in a website that demonstrates legal thought back to Aristotle: “there is only one definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.’ That definition is a child born in a country to ‘citizen’ parents.“ He quotes Aristotle: “[I]n practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors.” And then Apuzzo comments:

Here we can see that Aristotle did not define citizenship like the English did in the English common law in which they did not give any relevancy to the citizenship of the child’s parents, provided the parents were not diplomats or military invaders. Aristotle included in the definition of a “citizen” a person “of whom both the parents are citizens.” As we shall see, it is this definition which was handed down through the millennia through the law of nations and which the Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic (emphasis added).

His lengthy legal-website argument goes on to prove his point in detail! mintbark 00:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Information such as the above would certainly be welcome here if it is backed up by reliable sources. WND is not considered a reliable source; neither are blogs and other self-published web sites. As for Minor v. Happersett, you can cite that case in support of this particular theory of presidential eligibility only if you can find this interpretation cited in reliable sources — something which no one has succeeded in doing thus far. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Forthebetter makes some good points about the failure of this article to present both sides of the controversy of this topic. It instead appears to try to pick a side and suppress the other side. The legal arguments made by notable persons should be included in the article without question to illustrate the existence and extent of the controversy. Britcom 08:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, If WND, the oldest and most popular internet based news organization, is not considered a "Reliable Source", then there must not be any reliable sources on the internet, because no other online news organization can live up to the reputation enjoyed by WND. Britcom 08:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do some searching on WP:RSN for why WND is not considered reliable. Ravensfire (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for what is considered a reliable source. Britcom 01:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that's almost humorous (but still wrong)! Ravensfire (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

While we cannot (per WP:CIRCULAR) cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source for anything, an archive search of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN) will show that there has been a long-standing consensus amongst Wikipedia editors that WorldNetDaily does not meet the accepted standards for reliability, except for very narrow matters such as reporting about fringe theories or about WND itself. As for whether something is in fact a fringe theory, this topic is covered at length at WP:FRINGE. If you dispute whether WND is or is not a reliable source for purposes of the information we're talking about here, I would advise you to bring it up at WP:RSN. If (even after carefully reading WP:FRINGE) you dispute whether these alternative theories about the meaning of "natural-born citizen" do or do not deserve to be treated as mainstream, bring your complaint to WP:FTN (the Fringe Theories noticeboard) or WP:NPOVN (the Neutral Point of View noticeboard). Further haggling of the issue here (on the article's talk page), without any effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards, is useless and may be viewed as disruptive. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: making an "effort to open up a wider discussion on one of the above noticeboards", is what administrators are for, we're just editors. Britcom 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've started a discussion at WP:RSN (see here). Please go there, correct my description of your arguments if you feel I've misspoken, and try (if you can) to build a consensus supporting your position. Or else drop it. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I also posted a notice about this new WP:RSN discussion on the talk page of Forthebetter (talk · contribs) — the brand-new user who originally proposed adding the new material under discussion here, but who has not been seen since. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Britcom, editors are quite capable of using noticeboards to widen the discussion. It is not the sole remit of administrators. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, in issues of citizenship there will be (almost literally) endless sources in the form of legal text books, precedent etc etc. Blogs and websites should not be necessary at all. If you can't find discussion of the relative importance of English common law and Classical Natural Law in those sources you have business even trying to add content on this issue! p.s. I'm not sure you can be a "citizen" of a native tribe. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming from the RSN, I'll have to agree with Rich and Paul. WND is not a reliable source, nor are blogs. The length of time a website has been online is irrelevant. Popularity does not equal reliability. Also, Wikipedia articles do not have to "show both sides." Especially when the other "side" is such a small minority that academic sources don't even bother to discuss the subject. See WP:WEIGHT. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also dropping in from RSN.... I (mostly) agree with what HTF just said... with one caveat: WEIGHT is not based purely on academic sources. We have to account for coverage in mainstream media sources as well. IF (and this is a huge "if") mainstream media sources have discussed the claims made by people like WND, then we do need to give what WND says some degree of weight. IF the mainstream has taken note of and discussed a fringe idea, then that Fringe idea should be mentioned (at least mentioned "in passing"). I will also note that such a mention would be properly cited to the secondary mainstream media coverage, and not to the primary fringe source that came up with the idea. Blueboar (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The "both parents must be U.S. citizens" interpretation of the natural-born-citizen clause — or, more precisely, a categorical rejection of said interpretation — has been mentioned in several definitely/arguably/possibly mainstream media sources, such as the National Review, the Seattle Times, the Northwest Indiana Times, and the Sonoran Times (Phoenix metropolitan area). For what it may or may not be worth, the story has even appeared in [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/judge-says-obama-can-be-on-georgia-ballot/ WND]. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

¶ The Minor v. Happersett dicta is being squeezed for much more than it says. The actual case involved someone born here of two US citizens, who then departed the country. The Supreme Court said that the child born here to two citizens was undoubtedly a citizen from birth - no argument at all, and that was the situation in that case. The Court then said it was not going to analyze hypothetical situations such as a child born here to non-citizens - because that was not the situation with the case at hand and hadn't been discussed in this case. Some people squeezed and tormented that comment to suggest that the Supreme Court had held that a child, although born here, of two non-citizens, could not be a natural born citizen, but the Court not only had not made such a holding but had expressly avoided discussing it. Perhaps the Court could have phrased its lack of position better, but in any case Minor v. Happersett did not pretend to decide that issue at all. ¶ The presidential campaign of Charles Evans Hughes, born here to two non-citizens, tends to deny that argument, considering that Hughes, as Chief Justice, thought he was eligible and apparently so did almost everyone else considering that the issue wasn't raised during the campaign. That Chicago newspaper article against him, coming as it did a full month after the election was over and in an evanescent and localized publication, seems to have attracted no rejoinders and cannot pretend to have decisively contradicted the opinion of Hughes and the Republican Party to the contrary. Sussmanbern (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the article as is adequately notes (and sources) the existence -- and mainstream rejection -- of these "alternative" theories. --Weazie (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to Weazie's comment, I would say I think the article notes academic rejection of some theories, rather than a "mainstream" rejection. I don't believer there is a mainstream anymore, our society has become so fragmented that there are many minor streams of thought, but no main stream anymore. Britcom 11:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

References